1 1 ; ' i 



M 

H 
\i 

J 



m 




r/ ////// . . 1BT 5. £ 0 



U'N IT K II STAT E S OF AMERICA. . 



4 

/ N 



V 



ON THE INCARNATION 

OF 

THE ETERNAL WORD. 



EDINBURGH PRINTING COMPANY, 
12, South St David Street. 



ON 

THE INCARNATION 

OF 

THE ETERNAL WORD. 

BY THE LATE 

REV. MARCUS DODS, 

BELFORD. 



WITH 

RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE 

BY THE 

REV. THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D. 

SECOND EDITION. 



LONDON: 

SEELEY, BURNSIDE, & SEELEY, FLEET STREET ; 

AND NISBET AND CO., BERNERS STREET. 
EDINBURGH: THE PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY. 
M.DCCC.XLV. 



RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE 

BY THE 

REV. THOMAS CHALMERS, D.D. 



I regret that my engagements do not allow me to pre- 
pare a full or critical estimate of the very able and learned 
work, by the Rev. Marcus Dods, on The Incarnation 
of the Eternal Word, a second edition of which is 
now in the press. 

The Author of this Volume exemplifies a union, not 
often realized in the present times, of great mental 
wealth, with great mental vigour — being at once rich in 
the scholarship of a varied and extensive erudition, and 
yet possessed in no ordinary degree of massive and origi- 
nal powers of his own. He is of the same genus in Theo- 
logy with Warburton and Horsley of the Church of Eng- 
land — able, like them, to grapple with the most arduous 
and formidable questions in the Science ; and at the same 



Vi RECOMMENDATORY NOTICE. 

time to draw from the most recondite sources in Christian 
antiquity, all that might serve either to illustrate or sup- 
port his own high argument. 

I rejoice that a "New Edition should be called for in an 
age which I fear has lost in depth whatever it may have 
gained in diffusion. 

THOMAS CHALMERS. 

Morningside, July 3, 1844. 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE 



TO THE FIRST EDITION. 



That the u Word was made flesh," and that he was not 
made sinful flesh, are propositions which lie at the very 
foundations of Christianity. ' That the first of these pro- 
positions is denied by any person in the present age, I 
have little ground for supposing ; and I have not there- 
fore judged it necessary to enter at any length into the 
proof of it, but have contented myself with simply stating 
the grounds upon which that proof may be founded. Un- 
til very lately, the other proposition would not have re- 
quired, in a treatise like this, more than a passing notice. 
The earnestness, however, with which the sinfulness of 
our Lord's flesh is now maintained, renders it a matter 
of paramount importance. While, therefore, I am not 
aware that I have altogether omitted any material ques- 
tion that is intimately connected with the Incarnation, 
yet I have treated each more or less largely, according as 
I considered it as bearing more or less directly on that 
tenet. 

Of the exculpatory explanation of the word 'sinful,' 
that it is applied to the humanity of our Lord only 



Vlll 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



in a passive sense, that is, I suppose, synonymous with 
1 peccable,' I have not felt myself called upon to take any 
notice. For, first, the word has no such meaning. Next, 
If it had, yet some of the principal arguments in sup- 
port of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh are founded upon 
the active meaning of that word. Thirdly, Many other 
words equally offensive, and capable of no such explana- 
tion, are applied to the flesh of Christ, so that if that 
word was altogether abandoned, the tenet against which 
I contend remains unaltered. Fourthly, I deny that 
the word is applicable to Christ, or, if we must separate 
his humanity from himself, to the humanity of Christ, 
in any sense, active or passive. I deny that Christ, or 
the humanity of Christ, was peccable. Finally, The 
charge against the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
is, that this tenet is rank Nestorianism ; and nothing 
can possibly show a more thorough want of acquaintance 
with the subject, than an attempt to escape that charge 
by attaching to the word 4 sinful' a meaning less offen- 
sive than that which it is usually understood to convey. 
The fact is, the very offensiveness of the word has been 
the means of making not a few overlook the real ground 
of the charge. Shocked, as they well might be, at hear- 
ing such language applied to Christ, or to a part of 
Christ, they have looked no farther, imagining that the 
whole offence consists in the use of such opprobrious 
terms. That this is highly criminal and revolting to the 
feelings of the Christian, there is no doubt. But the charge 
of heresy rests upon a ground totally distinct from the 
offensiveness of the language. Take away from the word 
6 sinful' every offensive idea, let it be used even as the 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE, 



ix 



most laudatory word in the language, — that does not in 
the slightest degree affect the charge of heresy that lies 
against the tenet that the flesh of Christ was sinful. The 
charge rests not at all on the meaning of the term, but 
solely on its application. The question is, can this term, 
be its meaning what it may, be applied to the flesh of 
Christ, while it cannot be applied to Christ himself or to 
God ? While you say that the flesh of Christ was sinful, 
do you say also that Christ himself was sinful, or that 
God was sinful ? If not, — if you say that you apply to the 
flesh of Christ terms which you will not apply to Christ 
or to God, then either this is the most direct, and open, 
and flagrant Nestorianism, or no such heresy ever existed. 
The meaning of the term is a matter of not the slightest 
earthly consequence, as far as the charge of Xestorianism 
is concerned ; and the attempt to escape from the charge 
by palliating the offensiveness of the term, manifests an 
ignorance which certainly could not have been anticipated 
in any writer upon the subject in the present age. Em- 
ploy the word 4 sinful' if you will, as expressive of all that 
is good and great, that affects not in the slightest degree 
the charge of Nestorianism, as long as you say that, what- 
ever be its meaning, it may be applied to the flesh of 
Christ, but not to Christ himself, or to God. Nestorius 
attributed all that is good and great to the flesh of Christ ; 
he was, nevertheless, a Nestorian still, and was justly con- 
demned for making two persons in Christ, because he ap- 
plied to the flesh of Christ language which, however re- 
spectful, (and he used none that was not expressive of the 
highest respect,) he would not apply to God. 
For these reasons, I could not take the slightest notice of 



X 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



the attempt to evade the charge of Nest onanism, by palli- 
ating the offensiveness of the terms applied to the flesh of 
Christ. I have noticed it here, lest I should be suspected 
of overlooking it for a different reason. The ancient 
writers, especially after the time of Nestorius, were ex- 
tremely guarded upon this subject. They would apply no 
term to the humanity of Christ which they would have 
scrupled to apply to Christ or to God. I may give an il- 
lustration of the nicety with which expressions were then 
sifted, out of Facundus Hermianensis, himself, too, labour- 
ing under a violent, though, I think, groundless suspicion 
of Nestorianism, on account of his attachment to the cele- 
brated three chapters. In Book I. chapter iii., of the work 
which he addressed to the Emperor Justinian, he proves 
that a person of the Trinity suffered for us. There were 
two ways of expressing this, — unus de Trinitate passus 
est, — one of the Trinity suffered, and una de Trinitate per- 
sona passa est, — one person of the Trinity suffered. At 
present a man would not readily discover any difference 
between these two modes of expression, nor would easily 
detect a nearer approach to heresy in the one than in the 
other. Yet the difference was very clearly understood in 
the time of Justinian ; for while nobody felt any scruples 
about the latter expression, some Catholics hesitated to 
make use of the former, lest they should be supposed to 
ascribe suffering, not to a Divine person, but to the Divi- 
nity. Facundus, on the contrary, shows that the first is 
the proper mode of expression, as the latter does not stand 
sufficiently clear of Nest onanism. A Nestorian would 
not say that one of the Trinity suffered, but would say 
readily enough, that a person of the Trinity suffered, mean- 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



xi 



ing that the Man Jesus Christ who suffered bore the person 
of the Word, much in the same way as Paul bore it, when 
he said, " If I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, 
for your sakes I forgave it in the person of Christy What 
would have been thought, in those days, of the orthodoxy 
of men who openly avow their application to the flesh of 
Christ, of terms which they will not apply to Christ ? And 
what would have been thought of their knowledge of Theo- 
logy, when they attempted to escape the charge of heresy, 
by alleging that these terms are not applied in the offen- 
sive sense that they are commonly understood to convey ? 

In Part II., I had originally intended to give a complete 
view of the Theology of the Primitive Church on the doc- 
trine of the Incarnation. But this I soon found, however 
important, would require a work much larger than I con- 
templated, or could easily command time to execute. I 
found it necessary, therefore, to direct my attention ex- 
clusively to the one point of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
flesh. And on this point, too, I found that I must con- 
fine myself to the writers of the first four centuries ; and 
even within these limits I have been compelled to omit by 
far the greater number of the passages that I had marked 
for quotation. A different arrangement of the testimonies 
from the primitive writers would have exhibited their 
strength to much greater advantage. Still the simple ar- 
rangement of them, according to the order of time, has 
other advantages besides being the easiest. Few as they 
are, to what they might easily have been, and inartificial as 
is the arrangement, I trust they will be found perfectly suffi- 
cient to convince every impartial reader, that to say that 
the primitive Church believed in the sinfulness of Christ, 



xii 



THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 



or in the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, is an assertion the ex- 
travagance of which has never been exceeded. 

As a mite, however small, such as my ability permits 
me to contribute to the treasury of Gospel truth, I beg to 
commit my work to the candour of the Church, and to the 
blessing of its glorious Head. 



THE 

DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION. 



CHAPTER L 

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 

The doctrine of the Incarnation, so far as it can be under- 
stood by man, is sufficiently simple, and might be stated 
in a few sentences. But while errors are zealously pro- 
pagated upon the subject, which go very directly to the 
total subversion of every doctrine of Christianity, a some- 
what more detailed view of it seems to be called for, than 
would otherwise be necessary. I propose, therefore, to 
give such a general outline of the work of human redemp- 
tion, and of the offices which Christ executes in the ac- 
complishment of that work, as will enable us to see more 
distinctly the nature of the Incarnation. In doing this, I 
shall not fail to notice the bearing of the observations 
which may be made upon the question of the sinfulness of 
our Lord's humanity. I shall not, however, limit my re- 
marks to such points as may be necessary to prove that 
Christ was not fallen nor sinful, nor capable of falling or 
sinning. This may be proved in a few sentences to any 
person capable of forming an opinion upon the subject, 
and willing to listen, either to the authority of Scripture, 
or to the dictates of reason. But while the proof of our 

A 



2 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



Saviour's perfect sinlessness and impeccability will be with 
me a primary object, yet I trust that the general view 
which I propose to take will lead to observations which 
may be interesting to those whose minds are so fully satis- 
fied upon that question, that they would not take the 
trouble to read a single page upon the subject. 

This world was made by him who does nothing in vain. 
It was, therefore, made for some specific purpose, and 
that a purpose worthy of the work, and of the events of 
which it has been the scene. We may also rest perfectly 
satisfied that it actually accomplishes the purpose for which 
it was made ; since it is certain that infinite wisdom could 
not err in the plan, nor infinite power fail in its execution. 
The question then is, what is the purpose for which the 
earth was made and man upon it ? The reply to this ques- 
tion is, that God made all things for the purpose of mani- 
festing his own perfections. Eeason can discover no other 
cause of creation ; and the fact that God made all things 
for his own glory, is recognized in every page of Scripture. 
But when it is said that God made all things for his own 
glory, some explanation is necessary. We do not mean 
by this expression, that God made all things, or any thing, 
for the purpose of rendering himself more glorious than he 
was from all eternity, for that is impossible, his glory being 
alike incapable of increase or diminution ; but that he made 
all things for the purpose of making his glorious perfections 
known. And when it is said that God made all things for 
the purpose of manifesting his perfections, it is meant that 
the manifestation was to be made, not to himself, which 
is impossible, but to the creatures whom he made. It is 
obvious, then, that the manifestation was to be made both 
by the creatures and to the creatures. They were to be 
both the manifesters of the Divine perfection, and the per- 
cipients of these perfections when manifested. Now, as 
the purpose for which every creature is made is, that it 
may, according to its nature, manifest the perfections of 
God, and perceive them as manifested by itself, and by all 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



3 



other creatures, it follows as a necessary consequence, that 
to do this must be the glory and the happiness of the crea- 
ture, — its being's end and aim ; and it follows also, that 
the higher the degree in which any creature is capable of 
doing this, the higher is the degree of glory and of happi- 
ness which it is capable of attaining and enjoying. 

That every thing, according to its nature and capacity, 
does both manifest the perfections of God, and rejoice in 
them, is a fact open to every one's observation, and is 
often referred to in Scripture. The inanimate parts of 
God's works are often spoken of, not only as manifest- 
ing his perfections, but as rejoicing in the manifestation. 
" The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firma- 
ment showeth forth the works of his hands. Day unto 
day uttereth speech, and night unto night teacheth know- 
ledge." The sun rejoiceth to run his race : the heavens 
and the earth are called upon to hear the word of the 
Lord : the sea roars, and the fulness thereof : the forests 
clap their hands : the mountains break forth into singing, 
and the little hills rejoice. These, no doubt, are figurative 
expressions, but they are expressions which show the 
truth of the principle, that all things, according to their 
nature, manifest the perfections of God, and rejoice in 
them, when so manifested. The same remark still more 
obviously applies to such creatures as have life and feeling. 
The lower animals, which have received their instincts 
from God, and enjoy his bounties, though they know not, 
nor can know, any thing of him from whom their enjoy- 
ments come, afford a still more striking manifestation of 
his perfections, as is amply and beautifully illustrated in 
some of the latter chapters of the book of Job. But, be- 
yond all creatures, man is fitted, not merely to be the per- 
cipient of the Divine perfections, but also to manifest these 
perfections. And this he does not merely by that bodily 
structure, which is " fearfully and wonderfully made," nor 
by those mental faculties which raise him so high above 
the lower animals, which enable him to recall the past, to 



4 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



anticipate the future, and to approximate the remote ; but 
more particularly and emphatically by the fall, the re- 
demption, and the whole history of the human race. The 
first lesson that our Church teaches her children is, that 
u The chief end of man is to glorify God, and enjoy him 
for ever and it is upon this broad basis that all sound 
theology must be built. 

But to the general rule that all existing things manifest 
the perfections of God, one important and extensive ex- 
ception seems to be found in the existence of moral evil, 
which not only does not itself manifest the perfections of 
God, but which unfits the creature in whom it dwells from 
manifesting them. This exception, however, will be 
found on examination to be only apparent, not real. The 
question as to the origin of moral evil I am not called 
upon to discuss. It lies, I apprehend, beyond the reach 
of man ; and the result of the attempts which have hitherto 
been made to decide that question has certainly not been 
such as to encourage any further speculations on the sub- 
ject. Of the greater part of these attempts, it would be 
well if it could be said simply that they are failures. No 
question has ever led to more fatal consequences, or been 
productive of more disastrous results. Without, there- 
fore, attempting to solve the difficulties attending this 
question, I may merely remark, that they are difficulties 
which press with equal weight upon every system; for 
the actual existence of moral evil can be denied by none. 
He who proves that good preponderates over evil, if his 
proof be sound, does something, perhaps, to remove the 
unfavourable impression with regard to the character of 
God, which the existence of evil has sometimes produced ; 
but he has done nothing to account for the origin of evil. 
He who proves that through the medium of evil, a degree 
of perfection and happiness is attained, which could not 
by any other means be reached, may be admitted to have 
completely reconciled its existence with the perfections of 
God ; but still he has not accounted for its origin. Pro- 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



5 



bably, however, he has gone as far as it is possible for 
man to go. Our business is not so much to inquire into 
the origin of things that lie beyond our reach, as to take 
them as we find them actually existing, and derive from 
them the lessons which their existence is fitted to teach. 
The Egyptian may know nothing of the sources of the 
Nile, or of the causes of its overflow ; but when he sees it 
carrying desolation over his fields, experience has taught 
him that the temporary evil, of the cause of which he 
knows nothing, will prove a lasting benefit ; and that he 
shall not only reap a harvest when the flood has passed 
away, but a harvest of the richness of which the flood has 
been the cause. Even so we may not be permitted to 
open the sealed book, and to answer the question, whence 
cometh evil? But while it standeth before us in all the 
undeniable reality of its actual existence, we may be able, 
with the light of Revelation for our guide, to trace it to 
some of its beneficial results, and to see how, instead of 
unfitting the creature for the manifestation of the Divine 
perfections, it furnishes the means of a manifestation 
which never otherwise could have been given. n — ^ 

This will more clearly and strikingly appear, if we con- 
sider the work of redemption, for the sake of which the 
world was made, not with a reference to man alone, but 
with a reference to the whole rational family of God. Nor 
can we conceive that the world was made, and the work 
of redemption appointed, solely for the sake of man. Man 
is the sole object of redemption ; but he was made so for 
the sake of others ; and the existence and the agency of 
other beings, both good and evil, and the deep and in- 
tense interest with which they look upon the work of 
human redemption, is not incidentally and obscurely 
hinted in the Bible, but forms an essential and prominent 
part of that system which the Bible reveals. The elec- 
tion of Israel out of all the tribes of earth, to be the 
chosen people of God, will afford us a correct illustration 
of the choice of the human race, from among all the races 



6 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



that constitute his moral government, as the objects in 
whose redemption he might manifest his glorious perfec- 
tions to all. The Israelites were not chosen to be the pe- 
culiar people of God, on account of any superiority which 
they possessed over the rest of mankind ; for they were 
chosen in Abraham before they actually existed : so 
neither were mankind chosen to be the objects of God's 
redeeming love on account of any merit of their own, for 
this idea is inconsistent with the fact that they needed re- 
demption, but were chosen in Christ before they were 
created. The Israelites were not chosen that they alone 
might enjoy the blessing of God, but that through them 
that blessing might come upon all nations : neither was 
man chosen to redemption that its benefits might re- 
dound to him alone, but " to the intent that now, unto 
the principalities and powers in heavenly places, might 
be known, by the Church, the manifold wisdom of God." 
The Israelites were chosen, that unto them God might 
commit his revelations for the use of all nations : so man- 
kind were chosen, that in them God might manifest his 
perfections for the instruction of all his rational creatures. 
Though many of the chosen Israel perished in their sins, 
yet the great purposes for which that people was chosen 
were effectually accomplished : so, though multitudes of 
the human race perish, yet the great purposes for which 
they were chosen, as the objects of the work of redemp- 
tion, are not the less effectually accomplished. As the 
Israelites, though far behind most other nations in arts 
and sciences, yet taught to the world something infinitely 
more valuable than aught that art or science were ever 
capable of discovering : so, the human race, though far 
inferior to many other races, yet manifest to all a know- 
ledge of the character and perfections of God, which other- 
wise they could never have known. And, finally, as the 
Israelites are still destined to stand at the very head of 
the human race, and to be the most glorious of nations ; 
even so, the human race, though now so low, are destined 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



7 



to take their place at the head of all the families of God. 
Human nature is, at this moment, the most glorious of 
created natures, taken, in its assumption by the Son, into 
a nearness of union with the Godhead, which none other 
enjoys ; and where our head is, there all his true mem- 
bers shall in due time be. As the man Christ Jesus pass- 
ed through all suffering into glory, even so his people, 
exposed to dangers which others never knew, and made 
triumphant through his Spirit dwelling in them, rise to 
honours with which others can never be crowned ; and, 
living monuments of all those divine perfections which 
were displayed in their redemption, living records of the 
glory of God, they will awaken among the hosts of 
heaven a song which, throughout eternity, will be ever new 
In fine, if all things were made for the purpose of manifest- 
ing, to the creatures, the perfections of the Creator, then, 
above all things with which we are acquainted, must the 
work of redemption, the most glorious of all the works which 
we know, be designed and fitted for this great end. 

In order to see how the human race, in their fall and 
redemption, acquire for themselves, and communicate to 
others, this knowledge of the perfections of the Creator, 
it will be necessary to go back to a period when as yet 
there was no sin in the dominions of God, — when there 
were none but unfallen beings in existence. Such beings, 
it is clear, could have but a very limited and defective 
view of the nature and character of God. From his 
works they would be able to infer that he was possessed 
of great wisdom, and of great power ; and, from the 
happiness which they enjoyed, they would be persuaded 
of his great goodness. But that his wisdom was omni- 
science, — that his power was omnipotence, — that his 
goodness could extend, not merely to the unfallen and 
sinless creature, but also to the " unthankful and the evil," 
they could not by any possibility know. Of his mercy, it 
is obvious they could not possibly have any idea what- 
ever ; and of all his other perfections they could have very 



8 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



little, if any, knowledge at all. They could not tell if he 
were immutable, when nothing had ever occurred to put 
his mutability to the test. For the same reason, they 
could not tell if he were inflexibly just, unchangeably true, 
infinitely and unalterably holy. They might be able to 
prove by abstract reasonings, the probability that he pos- 
sessed these perfections ; but these proofs would be similar 
in their nature to the proof of the immortality of the soul 
by Plato or Seneca, — a fine speculation, but producing no 
such conviction as to become a living active principle, to 
be held fast, and acted upon, and carried out to all its 
practical results, at the expense of all that is dear in life, 
or at the expense of life itself. 

The perfections of God, in order to be fully known, 
must be seen, carried out into actual operation; and 
operating too under such circumstances as to prove them 
to be absolutely infinite. But this exhibition could not be 
made while none but unfallen beings existed. A large 
family, living under the eye of a father whom not one of 
them has ever offended, may have a considerable know- 
ledge of his character ; yet it is clear that that knowledge 
must be imperfect and defective. They may know that 
he is true, and just, and good ; but they cannot tell to 
what extent his truth, his justice, his goodness may reach, 
because nothing has ever occurred which could afford an 
occasion of trying, of limiting, or restraining, the exercise 
of these qualities. But let some individual of the family 
offend him, and then in his treatment of that individual, 
all the rest of the family, as well as the offender himself, 
will obtain a new view, and consequently a more extend- 
ed knowledge of his character. While the prodigal son 
dwelt beneath his father's roof, he knew well the goodness 
of his father's heart. But he was far from knowing the 
whole extent of that goodness. When pining in want 
and misery he resolved to return to his paternal home, all 
the extent to which he ventured to hope that his father's 
goodness could go, was to receive and treat him not as a 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



9 



son, but as a hired servant, and that too only upon the 
most earnest entreaty, and the most lowly confession of 
his errors. But when his return was welcomed with joy 
and gladness, when he felt his father's embrace, saw 
himself arrayed in the richest robes, and feasted in the 
most sumptuous manner, then did he know that his father 
possessed a goodness, the existence of which he did not 
dare previously to believe. Even so, the Great Father 
of All, whose prerogative it is to bring good out of evil, 
hath, out of the ruins of the human race, drawn an exhi- 
bition of his own character, from which angels, not less 
than men, acquire new views and more extended know- 
ledge of it. And as the human race consists of endless 
myriads of prodigals, some of whom never return, and as 
every individual differs in some respects, in his conduct 
and treatment, from every other, so the angels, who delight 
to trace the ways of God, derive from every individual a 
somewhat different view, and a somewhat increased 
knowledge of Ms character. And as that knowledge con- 
stitutes the very end and aim of their being, though 
possibly no actual danger might result to them from our 
fall, yet their glory and their happiness have received, and 
will receive, an incalculable augmentation from the work 
of our redemption. 

With the commencement of moral evil then, whatever 
was its origin, commenced a new and glorious develop- 
ment of the divine perfections. — When part of the angels 
sinned, and tor their sin were doomed to punishment, being 
driven out from the presence of the Lord, and from the 
glory of his power, God was seen in a new relation, and 
an additional view of his character would be given. Some- 
thing would be known of him that was not known before. 
But then this knowledge, like most other pieces of know- 
ledge, in intelligent minds, would give rise to some 
doubts, and to questions of no easy solution. Some 
illustration of God's displeasure against sin, and of his 
power to punish it, would be given ; and they would feel 

a2 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



that even though possessed of angelic excellence, they must 
obey or suffer. But then they would now know sin, of 
which, before its actual existence among them, they 
probably had not even an idea. And that idea would 
necessarily be attended with a painful feeling, — the feeling 
of insecurity. The offenders, it is true, were driven out ; 
but they now knew what probably they knew not before, 
that they were liable to sin and to punishment ; and we may 
easily conceive how deeply such a knowledge would 
affect their happiness. Their perfect and unsuspicious 
confidence in, and reliance upon each other, would be 
much abated, and the delight of their mutual communi- 
cations greatly lessened. The same causes that had 
already produced sin among them might produce the same 
effect again, and by successive defections, the throne of 
God might be left without a worshipper. The perplexing 
question, Whence comethevil? would naturally suggest 
itself ; and it would also naturally occur to them to 
inquire, how it happened that sin could possibly enter into 
the dominions of God at all ? If he were perfectly holy, 
then must he hate sin ; and if he were omniscient and 
omnipotent, why did he not foresee and prevent that 
which, as holy, he must hate, — that which, as rebellion 
against his own authority, he must hate, whether holy or 
not ? And these are questions, to the solution of which 
there is no reason to suppose that they had the means of 
making any approach to a satisfactory reply. Hence 
painful fears and doubts would be the result of the first 
appearance of sin in heaven. 

When they saw man made, a part of their fears would 
be removed. They would see that though all angels should 
rebel, there could be no room to fear lest " heaven should 
want inhabitants, or God want praise." But the next 
step in the providence of God, the fall of man, would bring 
back all their fears with increased pressure. Was God 
really so little able to resist the rebels, that he could not 
uphold his own fair workmanship from being led away 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



captive by them ? What then was the use of this creating 
power, if he could not preserve what he created, but made 
it only that it might afford a triumph to his enemies ? 
When they saw Satan become the god of this world, would 
not the power and other perfections of God stand greatly 
in doubt? The sons of God shouted for joy when man was 
made ; and that shout was expressive, not simply of adora- 
tion at seeing a new exhibition of their Maker's power, 
but also of the delight which they felt, at having, by this 
exhibition of his power, so many of their fears removed, 
which the entrance of sin had awakened. And proportion- 
ed to the delight which they felt and expressed at man's 
creation would necessarily be the consternation with 
which they beheld his fall. And when they heard it de- 
clared that man, though fallen, taken captive by Satan, 
and now leagued with him in rebellion against God, yet 
was not to be lost, what would be the result of such a d*^^ 
claration ? Probably new doubts and new fears. Creation j 
they had seen, and knew what that was. Sin also they 
had seen, and knew what the consequence of that was. 
But redemption was something as yet unheard of, and 
they would naturally ask, what new thing is this ? or how 
can it possibly be ? When angels fell, they were driven 
away in their wickedness, and no hope of restoration was 
held out to them. Yet they still possessed so much power 
as to carry away man into rebellion ; and now he is not 
to die, even after the sentence denounced, — " In the day 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." 1 Was God to 
prove himself regardless of his truth, by recalling the 
sentence so solemnly pronounced ? Was he to abandon 
his own holy law to violation, and his authority to con- 
tempt, by extending mercy to the transgressors ? Was 
the majesty of the divine government to be insulted with 
impunity ? and was the holiness of God to stoop to hold 
communion with that which was polluted ? In short, was 



3 See Appendix A. 



12 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



God to prove that Immutability formed no part of his 
character ? If he was destitute of any one of these per- 
fections, or if he possessed any of them only in a limited 
degree, and if angels were about to see that limit reached, 
then their happiness was gone. His immutability stood 
most in doubt, and most of all was it necessary that 
they should be well assured of this. For what other se- 
curity had they for the continuance of their happiness 
than this, that he who had made them, and had bestowed 
that happiness upon them, was a being who could not 
change ? Let this once be made doubtful, and then, in ad- 
dition to the feeling of insecurity arising from a sense of 
their own liability to sin, they would experience the still 
more painful feeling of insecurity derived from the muta- 
bility of the divine character. When they saw the newly 
created being involved almost immediately in spiritual 
death, and given up to moral bondage, it is obvious, that 
whether this arose from the want of power, or from the 
want of will in the Creator to sustain him, they could con- 
template the event with no other feelings than those of 
terror and dismay. 

Had man, under these circumstances, been driven away 
in his wickedness, this would have done nothing to alle- 
viate their dismay : as such a consequence of the fall would 
have seemed to render useless the creating power of God : 
for to what purpose served the power of creating, if se- 
parated from a power of sustaining, — if he could not save 
those whom he created from becoming the servants of an- 
other lord ? But then, how could man possibly be pardoned 
and saved, without inducing all the painful consequences 
just referred to? God had most positively declared, that 
on the day on which he transgressed he should die. Could 
that sentence be suspended, or even its execution delayed, 
without creating some question as to how far his truth 
might be relied upon ? If the law of God was violated, and 
the authority of God trampled upon, not merely with im- 
punity, but with favour to the transgressor, was not this 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



13 



in effect to abrogate the law? Even under the Christian 
dispensation, which so awfully demonstrates the sanctity 
of the law, how difficult is it to prevent men from " turning 
the grace of God into lasciviousness," and from sinning 
" because grace abounds!" But had God forgiven men, 
without any demonstration of the holiness, and of the un- 
alterable nature of the law, this would have been to set 
open a flood-gate for the introduction of all iniquity. That 
God could by a mere act of power, or, as it ought rather 
to be called in this case, of/bra?, have rescued the sinner 
from the grasp of Satan, and have created him anew, and 
have reinstated him in higher happiness than that from 
which he fell, may be perfectly true. But what then be- 
came of his moral attributes ? Such an act of power, if it 
had been an act of mercy to the guilty, would at the same 
time have been an act of great cruelty to the innocent. 
For, who among his unfallen creatures could have in this 
case avoided the conclusion, that he who could act so was 
an unholy, an unjust, a mutable, nay, a capricious being ? 
He would have appeared to be capricious in this, that if 
the law was to be virtually abrogated by the acquittal of 
one class of fallen creatures, it would be impossible to dis- 
cover any reason why the same dishonoured law should 
be applied, in all its unabated rigour, to another class. 

We are often told that it is an easy thing for God to for- 
give sin, — that there is nothing to prevent him from with- 
drawing his right to punish the guilty, and that such an 
act of grace would highly illustrate his goodness, and 
awaken songs of praise among both angels and men. No- 
thing, however, can well be more evident than the truth 
of the very reverse of this. Among men such an act of 
grace would have been, and could have been productive of 
nothing else, than the most unrestrained licentiousness ; 
and among angels of nothing but consternation and dis- 
may ; and an act of mercy so exercised would have effec- 
tually defeated every purpose of mercy. Every sinner 
thus rescued by an act of omnipotent power, not from the 



14 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



grasp of Satan, but from the righteous sentence of God's 
most holy law, would have been a new monument of a 
mutable God, and of a despised law ; and instead of being 
hailed on his entrance into heaven with songs of joy, 
would have been received with expressions of jealousy and 
fear. It is easy, it is said, for God to depart from his right 
to punish. But by whom is this said ? By men who have 
never been convinced of sin, who know not how exceed- 
ingly sinful a thing it is ; who know nothing of the extent 
and spirituality of the law of God, and have never felt 
their need of, and dependence upon, a Saviour. Ask the 
awakened sinner who has felt the terrors of the law coming 
like water into his bowels, and like oil into his bones, if 
he thinks it an easy thing for God to forgive sin ? He will 
tell you, that when a violated law set all his sins in array 
before him, and when conscience confirmed the sentence 
of the law, so far was he from thinking it an easy thing 
for God to forgive his sins, that hardly all the grace mani- 
fested in the Gospel could persuade him to believe it pos- 
sible, that even with God there could be an extent of 
mercy sufficient to forgive his sins, — that while he felt no 
difficulty in believing the general proposition, that with 
God there is mercy for sinners, he feels that nothing but a 
divine power could have enabled him to apply the general 
proposition to his own particular case, and to believe that 
there was mercy with God sufficient for him. It is easy, 
we are often told, for God, by a mere act of grace to par- 
don, and by a mere act of power to regenerate and save 
sinners. It is easy for him to forego his right to punish 
the transgressor. But it is not seen, nor, save by the 
awakened sinner, can be seen, that in so doing he foregoes 
all the inflexibility of his justice, all the sacredness of his 
truth, all the sanctity of his law, all the spotless purity of 
his holiness, and all the majesty of his government, and 
is destroying all the security that is founded on the im- 
mutability of his character. And as to the mercy which 
it is supposed would have been illustrated by such an 



PRE LIMIN AR Y OB SERVATION S . 



15 



act of grace, I think it has been shown already, and will 
be more distinctly shown afterwards, that mercy would 
have been outraged by such a proceeding. Moreover, the 
pardon of sin, without any manifestation of its hatefulness, 
and of the perfections of God, would have brought both 
his wisdom and power into question. For surely it 
would have exhibited much more of both, to sustain 
man from falling at all, than to leave him to fall, mere- 
ly in order to rescue him from the effects of his fall, 
by an exercise of power put forth at the expense of all his 
moral attributes ; while all the lessons taught by the work 
of redemption, for the sake of which the earth was made, 
and man upon it, would not only have been entirely lost, 
but it would have been impossible to determine why some 
men were saved, and others left to perish, — why grace was 
offered to one fallen race, and none offered to another ; 
and it would indeed have been a question which defied 
solution, for what one useful purpose could such a being as 
man possibly have been made ? The Jews erred grievous- 
ly when they supposed that the dispensation, of which they 
were the recipients, terminated in themselves, and was 
given them, not for the sake, but to the exclusion of all 
other nations. And we carry the same error to a much 
more pernicious extent, and still more effectually mar the 
glory of the work of redemption, when we consider that 
work as terminating in man, — when we consider ourselves 
as an insulated race, and not as beings intimately connect- 
ed with, and made for the sake of all the rational family 
of God. We might just as rationally hope to ascertain 
the true position and motions of the earth, without refer- 
ring to the heavenly bodies with which it is connected, and 
of the system constituted by which it is an essential and in- 
tegral part, as hope to ascertain the true position and the 
use of such a being as man, and the bearing of the work 
of redemption, without referring to those heavenly intelli- 
gences with whom he is intimately connected, — a connec- 
tion recognized in every page of the Bible. Had no nation 



16 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



been to be blessed but the Jews, the Jews would never 
have been chosen ; and had no being been to profit by the 
work of redemption but man, it seems impossible to con- 
ceive one rational purpose that could be answered by such 
a creature as man being made at all. The Sadducee might 
think himself exceedingly learned, and very far above all 
vulgar prejudices, when he could prove that there was 
" neither angel nor spirit and might show what a cant- 
ing hypocrite was the Pharisee who confessed both. But 
if the Pharisees could not convince them out of the Law of 
Moses, there were not wanting heathens who stood forward 
to vindicate their prerogatives as men, and to prove the 
being of a God, and the immortality of the soul. And 
the modern infidel may think himself exceedingly learned, 
and very far above all vulgar and superstitious prejudices, 
when he denies, — and perhaps founds his denial on the 
very alleged fact of the insignificance of man, — all the 
peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. But even were we unable 
to vindicate the truth, other orders of beings would come 
forward to vindicate their own share in the glorious work 
of man's redemption. The Sadducee and the infidel may 
perish in groping round the contracted circle of their own 
dark and narrow conceptions ; but the enlightened among 
men, and higher orders of beings, will contemplate with 
the eye of a deep veneration, and of an intense interest, 
that glorious work from which they have already learned 
much, and from the farther development and the final 
consummation of which they expect yet to learn more, 
of the character of the Almighty Maker and Ruler of all. 

It was when it was declared that fallen man should be 
saved, and when it appeared not how that salvation could 
be effected, without casting doubt and distrust over all the 
perfections of God, unhinging all the principles upon which 
his moral government was founded, and thus producing 
the most disastrous and fatal consequences throughout the 
whole universe, that the great mystery of redemption, into 
which angels desire to look, and from which they learn 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



17 



wisdom, began to run its mighty course. It was then that 
the eternal Word was announced as the Eedeemer of the 
fallen race, who should rescue them from their thraldom, 
and bring them back to holiness, to happiness, and to 
God. Now, in the accomplishment of this work, the Ee- 
deemer has three parties to deal with, — him who holds the 
captives in bondage, — the captives themselves so held in 
bondage, — and him who, for their rebellion, gave them up 
to captivity : and each of these parties renders the pos- 
session of certain powers essentially necessary in the Ee- 
deemer. He who holds the captives in bondage may be 
determined that they shall not go free for any price, or 
upon any consideration. The Eedeemer, therefore, must 
of necessity possess power to compel him to let them go. 
The captives may be utterly insensible to the misery of 
their bondage, and unwilling to be delivered. The Ee- 
deemer, therefore, must possess a power to convince them 
of the misery of their state, and to awaken in their hearts 
the desire of liberty. The captives may be totally igno- 
rant of the way that leads to the home whence they have 
been exiled, and totally incapable of encountering the 
manifold difficulties and dangers with which that way 
abounds. The Eedeemer, therefore, must possess power 
both to lead them in the right way, and to support and 
strengthen and uphold them against all opposition. The 
captives may have acquired habits and dispositions which 
totally incapacitate them for the occupations and enjoy- 
ments of the country to which they are to be brought. 
The Eedeemer, therefore, must possess power to change the 
whole tenour and current of their habits, affections, and 
dispositions. The captives may have been driven from 
home for their crimes, and their return would be an in- 
fringement of that law by which they were condemned, a 
dishonour to the sovereign by whom they were banished, 
and dangerous to those of his subjects who never rebelled . 
The Eedeemer, therefore, must possess a power to ensure 
them a welcome reception ; that is, he must bring them 



18 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 

back in such a way as to magnify and make honourable 
the law by which they were condemned, — to display the 
equity and justice, as well as the goodness and mercy of 
the sovereign by whom they were exiled, — to give fresh 
stability to all the principles of his moral government, and 
additional security to all his faithful subjects. He must 
be able to reconcile, and to preserve in the most indis- 
soluble union, these apparently most irreconcileable things, 
the glory of God, and the safety of the sinner, — to unite, 
in most harmonious union, these apparent contraries, the 
mercy that pleaded for the sinner's safety, with the truth 
that demanded his punishment, — the righteousness that 
condemned him, with the peace that was promised him. 
Such are the powers which it is essentially necessary that 
the Redeemer should possess ; or, to sum up all these 
powers in three words, he must be a Prophet, a Priest, 
and a King, in the highest and most extensive application 
of these terms. Such powers, it is clear, no created being 
could by any possibility possess ; but such powers were 
found in the Son. Announced, therefore, as the Redeemer 
of men, he was announced as Prophet, Priest, and King ; 
and the first acts of each of these offices he performed per- 
sonally. As Prophet he announced to man the hope of 
deliverance through the "woman's seed." As Priest he 
appointed sacrifices, as typical of his own death for sin- 
ners, and clothed our first parents with the skins of slain 
beasts, instead of their own fig leaves, as a token that he 
would cover their spiritual nakedness by a righteousness 
much more effectual than any that they could provide. 1 
And as King he sent them forth to cultivate the ground, 
until they should return to the dust from which they were 
taken. These offices, thus formally and personally as- 
sumed by the Son, were thenceforth delegated to his repre- 
sentatives, till the fulness of time should arrive for his 

1 This may appear rather a forced interpretation of this transaction. It has, 
however, been sanctioned by some able and sober writers ; among others, by 
the Rev. C. Benson in his Hulsean Lectures on Scripture Difficulties. 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



19 



coming in the flesh. To what extent the knowledge of 
men or of angels, as to these offices, might then go, we 
have no means of ascertaining ; but we may be well as- 
sured, that they would study with the most careful atten- 
tion every type and every prophecy which could throw light 
upon so important a subject ; and this we know, that at 
that period commenced, and, in the evolution of the work 
of redemption, was gradually unfolded for the instruction of 
both, an exhibition of the glory of God's perfections, of the 
majesty and stability of God's government, and of the 
sanctity of God's law, far beyond aught that could have 
been derived either from the sinless obedience, or from 
the endless punishment of all created beings. 

It will be observed that I here consider the Son, not 
simply as elected to, but as actually invested with, the 
offices of Prophet, Priest, and King, and as discharging 
the duties of these offices from the moment of the fall. 
After that period, every prophet that announced to the 
church any portion of the will of God, received his com- 
mission from him who is the great and only Prophet, — > 
every priest who ever offered an acceptable sacrifice to 
God, had it accepted only through him who is the great 
and only Priest, — every king that ever reigned was the 
delegate of, and accountable to, him who is the great and 
only King. During the period anterior to his incarnation, 
and from the beginning, he acted as the Prophet, Priest, 
and King of the Church. The proof of this, however, will 
occur more naturally afterwards ; and I might proceed at 
once to consider the circumstances attending the incarna - 
tion, but a preliminary question occurs, which must be 
first disposed of. The question to which I refer is one 
that has been often asked, If the incarnation was necessary, 
why was it so long delayed ? To this it may be replied, 
that had not the incarnation been delayed, its necessity 
would not have been seen. Had the Word been made 
flesh immediately on the Fall, sin would not have had 
sufficient time to develop its native malignity, nor would 



20 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



the miserable and degraded state of man have sufficiently 
appeared. It was necessary that man should be placed in 
a great variety of situations, both before and after the 
Incarnation, that by the endless variety of situations in 
which he was placed might be seen the utter helplessness 
and hopelessness of his state ; and his utter inability, 
under any circumstances, of emancipating himself from 
the bondage of Satan. 

Under the patriarchal dispensation, there were circum- 
stances extremely favourable to the cultivation of holiness, 
and the return of men to God. Paradise was as yet before 
their eyes, though guarded by the heavenly host and by 
the flaming sword. Adam lived for many ages among them, 
to tell them of the blessedness of the state from which he 
had fallen, and to tell them, too, upon the authority of the 
divine promise, of the hope of being restored to that state, 
— and Cain was among them a monument of the miser- 
able consequences of unsubdued passion. Under these 
circumstances, we should naturally expect to find them 
looking to Paradise, and deploring with the deepest peni- 
tence the happiness they had lost ; and looking up to God 
with humble gratitude for the hope of restoration ; and 
seeking by the most lowly and earnest obedience to secure 
the speedy fulfilment of the promise. But what do we in 
reality find ? A God who could not be at that time un- 
known, yet utterly despised, and wickedness prevailing to 
an extent which has never been surpassed. 

Immediately after the deluge, it might have been 
expected that men, with the recent traces of so awful a 
visitation every where before their eyes, would have been 
effectually deterred from sin. So far, however, was this 
from being the case, that they went on increasing in 
iniquity, till the very name of the true God was forgotten, 
and his worship abandoned for idolatry of every form. 
Men were therefore left to use or abuse the knowledge 
already given, as they were able, or disposed ; and the 
whole history of the heathen world proves how utterly 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



21 



lost, how hopelessly degraded man is. And if the 
exhibition was continued down to the time of our Sa- 
viour's appearance, it cannot be thought to have been 
continued too long; since, though through the greater 
part of the world it has been continued down to the 
present day, it has not yet sufficiently impressed men with 
the humbling, but necessary lesson, which it is designed, 
and so well fitted to teach, — no, nor though continued to 
eternity ever will teach it. For, in the face of all the 
multiplied and deplorable proofs afforded by the odious, 
the disgusting, and revolting practices of idolatry, both in 
ancient and in modem times, both among savage and 
civilized heathens, of the utter imbecility of man's under- 
standing, the perversion of his reason, the corruption of 
his heart, and his total inability to rescue himself from the 
state of deep degradation into which he has fallen, there 
are men who can deny that man is a fallen being at all, 
and can talk of the extent of the human understanding, 
and of the sufficiency, nay, the glory of human reason. 
Human reason is indeed a glorious thing when guided 
and sustained by the Spirit of God ; but such men do 
themselves show how utterly perverted and degraded it is, 
when left to its own resources, and how hopelessly they 
are blinded, when they can gravely maintain a position, 
the utter absurdity of which is written, in lines of horror 
and of blood, on every page of the history of man ; and 
when, indebted as they are to the knowledge communi- 
cated by the great Prophet, for their own exemption from 
the degradation of saying " to a stock, Thou art my 
father, and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth," they 
can yet pretend that no revelation of God was necessary. 
If the history of the world teaches any thing, it surely 
teaches this, that " the world by wisdom never knew 
God." Kevelation is necessary even to the existence of 
pure Theism. Polytheism and idolatry is all that man 
has ever proved himself capable of attaining by his own 
unaided reason. Somniaverat Deum, non cognoverat, saith 



22 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



Lactantius of Plato ; and what was said of Plato may 
well be said, I suppose, of all other heathens. 

But impressively as the lesson of man's helpless and 
degraded state is taught by the whole history of man, 
when left to himself, or with only a traditionary revelation 
to guide him, the lesson is rendered still more impressive 
by the exceptions to this state which have occurred. The 
Israelites were placed in circumstances which might have 
been expected to repress every corrupt propensity, and to 
ensure the most devoted obedience. God chose them for 
his own peculiar people, he was continually manifesting 
his power and his presence among them, and that very 
often in a manner directly miraculous ; he gave them a 
ritual so splendid as to leave them no room to look with 
envy upon the most splendid ceremonies of the heathens 
around them ; he hired them to obedience by the worldly 
prosperity which it never failed to produce, and deterred 
them from rebellion by the siuTerings with which it never 
failed to be followed. Under such circumstances, one 
would think disobedience almost impossible. And if men 
were unfallen creatures, or if the perversion of their un- 
derstanding, and the corruption of their heart, were 
oapable of being corrected by any circumstances, however 
favourable, it would have been so. But what is their 
whole history ? Surely it is a most decisive proof that 
the native tendencies of the human heart to evil, and the 
imbecility of the human understanding, are not to be cor- 
rected by any external circumstances, however fitted for 
that purpose. Over barriers which one would conceive to 
have been almost insurmountable, they rushed into the 
most unnatural and most revolting of the practices of the 
heathen around them. 

It may be said, however, that the dispensation under 
which the Israelites were placed, though it did present 
strong motives to obedience, and enlisted the selfish pas- 
sions on the side of holiness, by its temporal rewards and 
punishments, was yet defective. It preceded the Incar- 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



:>3 



nation, and the degree of knowledge as to man's eternal 
prospects which it communicated was extremely defec- 
tive, and wrapped up in all the obscurity of types and 
shadows. Its appeals to the higher principles of hu- 
man nature were indistinct, and therefore feeble ; and, 
therefore, though men under this dispensation did prove 
both that their reason was blind, and their hearts cor- 
rupt, yet still man, placed under other circumstances, 
and under a dispensation more distinctly and more di- 
rectly appealing to the higher principles of our nature, 
might prove that that blindness of reason, and that cor- 
ruption of heart, may be cured, without the direct and im- 
mediate agency of the Spirit of God. The experiment 
has been made. The great Prophet came, and communi- 
cated to men that knowledge of divine things, to which 
no addition has ever been made. He gave to men instruc- 
tions so clear that it is impossible to mistake them ; he 
sanctioned these instructions by motives of the most re- 
sistless urgency, by the prospect of eternal happiness on 
the one hand, and of eternal woe on the other ; he ani- 
mated them to obedience by providing for them the most 
effectual assistance and support ; and he gave them the 
most perfect security that their labour should not be in 
vain, but that their reward should be sure. He esta- 
blished a dispensation which appeals, in the most direct 
and forcible manner, to all that is lofty in human thought, 
and to all that is sensible in human feeling, and to all 
that is pure in human affection ; and what was the re- 
sult ? Did the moral darkness of the world pass away 
before this glorious light, like the darkness of night before 
the rising sun ? Did men every where and eagerly em- 
brace the 44 glad tidings of great joy" which were an- 
nounced to them? Exulting in that " life and immor- 
tality" which had been brought to light, did the securing 
of, and preparation for, that life and immortality, be- 
come the engrossing object of all their thoughts, sinking 



24 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



all the petty concerns of time into insignificance? No. The 
result has proved, in the most impressive and decisive 
manner, not only that man is a fallen being, but fallen to 
a depth from which he cannot be recovered by any means, 
however well adapted to that end, without the immediate 
agency of God : that there is an inveteracy in the perver- 
sion of man's reason, and in the corruption of his heart, 
which no other hand can cure. It is in vain that we are 
surrounded by all the advantages for moral improvement 
which God can bestow ; it is in vain that weapons of the 
most heavenly temper are put into our hands ; till we be 
quickened by the Spirit, the arm that should wield them 
is unnerved in all the torpor of spiritual death. The les- 
son taught by the whole history of Christianity is, that 
the possession of a dispensation of a religion of absolute 
and unimproveable perfection, does not in the slightest 
degree emancipate us from a total dependence upon God, 
for the possession of all moral good. 

Yet that lesson, though so impressively taught, has 
been very imperfectly learned. There are many, and 
many of those too who believe the Gospel, who maintain 
that man is not a totally corrupted and depraved creature, 
—that death and natural evil are the only consequences 
derived to us from the fall, — and that since God has given 
to us the Gospel, we require no farther aid, but are abund- 
antly able to apply and to improve it of ourselves. Now, 
if there be men who, with the history of Christianity actu- 
ally before their eyes, can maintain such doctrines as these, 
what would have been the consequence, had the Gospel, 
at its first promulgation, spread with resistless force through 
all the world, and manifested its enlightening and purify- 
ing effect in every heart ? We are very apt to regret that 
this should not actually have been the case, and infidelity 
has reared some of its puny arguments upon the fact, that 
Christianity has neither been communicated to all lands, 
nor has given spiritual life to all to whom it has been 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 25 

communicated. But this fact, like all other facts when pro- 
perly understood, is a proof of the wisdom of him who does 
all things well. Had our Lord's object in the establishment 
of the new dispensation been to save the greatest possible 
number of persons, in the shortest possible space of time, 
then the unresisted and universal triumph of the Gospel 
would have been the most direct means of accomplishing his 
design. But if his object was to give the most important 
possible instruction to the greatest possible number, both 
of angels and men, then the early and universal triumph of 
the Gospel would have defeated that purpose. For if men 
who see the determined resistance which has been offered 
to the reception of the Gospel in all ages and countries, 
and who are aware of the perpetual tendency in those who 
do receive it, to modify it to their own views, can yet 
maintain such doctrines as those just referred to, what 
would have been the consequence, had the Gospel been 
uniformly successful? Had the Gospel been received in 
all its simplicity, and obeyed by every one to whom it was 
announced, — had it operated with all the regularity and 
efficiency of a physical cause, then much more in that case 
would the idolatry have been committed, of attributing to 
the means that efficiency which belongs only to the Holy 
Spirit. If men can forget and deny their dependence on 
the Spirit now, how much more would it have been denied 
under such circumstances ? Men would have thought that 
to become a Christian was a mere matter of course ; and 
had fruit been as regularly produced in the one case as in 
the other, would have felt the necessity of the agency of 
the Spirit, to render the seed of the Word fruitful in their 
hearts, just as little as they are now apt to see the neces- 
sity of a divine agency to fructify the seed in their fields. 
Thus the agency of the Holy Spirit — a doctrine as essen- 
tial to the Gospel as that of the atonement itself — would 
have been denied ; and this would speedily have put an 
end to Christianity. Thus the early and universal tri- 

B 



26 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 

iiiiiph of the Gospel would have ensured its early and uni- 
versal overthrow. 

To this conclusion we are clearly led by the history of 
the past ; and the history of the future, as far as it is re- 
vealed, leads us still more clearly to the same conclusion. 
God will not give his glory to another, no, not even to the 
Bible ; nor will permit men to believe that the Gospel 
makes its way in the world, or in the human heart, by its 
own intrinsic power and excellence, but by his Spirit. 
This is taught by the past and the present history of 
Christianity, and the Millennium is approaching to give to 
this truth the last decisive proof, and to render it for ever 
impossible to doubt, that for the reception and possession 
of all spiritual good, man is immediately dependent on God, 
without whom he can never either acquire or retain one 
moral excellence. The Millennium is described as a state 
of universal righteousness. It is the triumph of the Gos- 
pel, when Christ stall possess the heathen for his inherit- 
ance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for a possession. 
But we are told that this state of universal righteousness 
is to terminate in a state of almost universal apostacy. 
Now, what is to bring so holy and blessed a state to such 
a fearful termination ? It is plain that this can happen only 
from the withdrawing of the Holy Spirit ; and it is equally 
plain that the Holy Spirit will not withdraw till men have 
forgotten their dependence upon him, and ceased to pray 
for him. And that they will do this we may be certain 
both from the history of the past, and from what we see 
at present. We live in most eventful times. The ele- 
ments of ^some mighty movement have, for some years, 
been gathering around us with unexampled rapidity. The 
ancient bonds of society seem to be worn out, and burst- 
ing asunder. The old despotisms appear to be crumbling 
to dust, together with the superstition on which they lean ; 
while the present aspect of society promises to substitute 
In their room nothing better than liberalism allied with 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



27 



infidelity, — an infidelity so much the more dangerous, in 
that it has assumed the form of Christian theology, and 
proclaims its dogmas by the mouths of men who eat the 
bread of the Church, and call themselves her ministers. 
Yet, under circumstances so appalling, when we feel be- 
neath our feet, what seems to be the heave and the swell 
of the approaching earthquakes, men can pillow their heads 
in security, and dream of the uninterrupted advance of so- 
ciety to perfection, and loudly proclaim that men have 
now reached a point in the progress of improvement, from 
which there is not only no danger, but no possibility of 
receding. JSTow, if men can reason in this manner at pre- 
sent, how much more will they reason thus toward the 
end of the Millennium, when circumstances will afford an 
infinitely better ground for such reasonings, than any that 
can be found at present ? Yes, after centuries of universal 
righteousness, men will begin to forget that they are cor- 
rupted and depraved creatures ; that for all their excel- 
lences they are indebted to the quickening energy and 
sustaining power of the Holy Spirit. So little accustomed 
to sin, they will begin to forget that they are in any danger 
of it. They will imagine that they have arrived at a point 
in the progress of moral excellence, from which it is im- 
possible that any retrograde movement can take place. 
The folly of all rebellion against God will appear in so 
clear a light, that they will be ready to think it impossible 
that any rational creature can ever more be guilty of it. 
They will look upon the present state of Christianity with 
a feeling very similar to that with which we look upon the 
absurdities of heathenism, wondering how beings endued 
with reason could ever be misled by the delusions to 
which we are so commonly yielding, or could consider 
themselves Christians at all. And, thinking it impossible 
that ever Christianity can be reduced to so low a standard 
again as it is among us ; and forgetting that they are na- 
turally as weak and as corrupt as we are, and that their 
strength is not in themselves, they will less earnestly pray 



28 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



for the Holy Spirit. He, provoked, will withdraw ; and 
then cometh, in their apostaey, the fearful demonstration, 
that men never can be exalted to a pitch of moral excel- 
lence and spiritual power, where they maybe safely left 
to their own unaided powers, to increase, or even to retain 
what they have acquired. When the Spirit has withdrawn, 
and Satan is again let loose, then will it be seen that even 
all the glory of the Millennial excellence will not prevent 
man from being carried away, by the corrupt tendencies of 
his heart, into a state of bondage to error and guilt. And 
then cometh the end, when the rational family of God 
have no more to learn from the wanderings of their prodigal 
brother. 

These considerations appear to me very satisfactorily to 
show that the Incarnation could not take place, either im- 
mediately after the beginning, or immediately before the 
end of the world. Had our Lord come in the flesh at an 
early period of the world, the history of Christianity would 
have been the same. There must first have been a long, 
a very partially successful struggle, in order to prove, 
what we feel it so very difficult to admit, that the Gospel 
makes not its way to our hearts, because we so clearly 
see, and so readily yield to, its excellence ; but solely by 
the influence of the Holy Spirit. Then would have follow- 
ed its universal triumph, in order to show, that however 
incapable of making way by its own intrinsic excellence, 
yet, when he chose to put forth his power, all the guilt 
and all the power of the world could offer it no effectual 
opposition. And then would have come the apostaey, in 
order to show that there is no point in the progress of spi- 
ritual attainment, at which man, unless sustained by an 
Almighty arm, and borne onward by an Almighty power, 
would not rapidly recede into a state of guilt and of suffer- 
ing. In this case the world would long since have reach- 
ed its termination : but while what is properly called the 
Christian dispensation would have afforded the same in- 
struction, at whatever period it had taken place, yet some 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



29 



important links in the chain of man's history, and some 
important points in the instruction afforded by it, would 
have been wanting. Let us acknowledge, then, the wis- 
dom of all the divine arrangements, and admit that for 
these reasons, and probably, too, for other reasons, which 
we cannot see, it was necessary that our Lord should 
delay his coming till the period when it actually took 
place. 1 

Having thus disposed of the preliminary question, we 
may now proceed to consider the circumstances of the In- 
carnation itself. These are stated with much simplicity in 
Scripture ; and the discussions into which it will afterwards 
be necessary to enter, will enable us to be very general in 
our remarks here. The first inquiry to which our attention 
is here called is, who was it that became incarnate ? To this 
the reply is, that it was the Son, the second person of the 
Holy Trinity. Reasons why the Son alone could become 
incarnate are drawn from considerations on the Trinity, 
which cannot well be introduced here, as they would lead 
us too far from the present subject. But there is one rea- 
son which, though far from the most satisfactory, is yet so 
very simple and intelligible, that I shall content myself with 
stating it. Had the Father become incarnate, then, being 
the Father by nature, and becoming a Son by incarnation, 
he would have been both Father and Son, which would 
have been altogether incongruous ; and there would, more- 
over, have been two Sons in the Trinity. For a like rea- 
son the Holy Ghost would not become incarnate, for then, 
becoming a Son by incarnation, he would have been both 
Son and Holy Ghost ; and in this case, too, there would 
have been two Sons hi the Trinity. Hence, to become in- 
carnate was suitable to the Son alone. 

We may now go on to consider how the act of the In- 
carnation proceeded; and, in doing so, we must simply 
take the Evangelist for our guide, who thus describes it. 



1 See note B. Appendix, 



30 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



u And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy 
Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest 
shall overshadow thee ; therefore, also, that holy thing 
which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God." 1 Here we are told that when the Son assumed our 
nature, " he was conceived in the womb of the Virgin 
Mary, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Now, when in 
assuming our nature, he consented to be conceived and 
born of a woman, that which he took into indissoluble 
union with his person was a true body and reasonable 
soul. The reality of his body is proved by the same cir- 
cumstances that prove the reality of our own. He hunger- 
ed and thirsted, he was weary and slept, he was born 
and grew, he sweated and bled, he died and was buried ; 
all which things are proper to a real body, and prove that 
his body was no phantom, but truly flesh and blood. 
That he took also a reasonable soul admits of equally easy 
proof. For he grew in wisdom ; he felt grief and sore 
amazement, which neither his body nor his Divinity could 
feel ; he had a will also distinct from his Divine will ; and 
he died, which he could not have done had he not had a 
soul ; for death consists in the separation of the soul from 
the body. Neither his soul nor his body could ever be for 
one moment separated from his Divinity, but they were 
separated from each other, which constitutes death. Thus 
it is clear that he took a true body and a reasonable soul, 
that is, every thing that is essential to full and complete 
manhood. 

There are two questions, however, one with regard to our 
Lord's body, and another with regard to his soul, which 
require some attention. As to his body, we must inquire 
whether it was really formed of, and nourished by, the sub- 
stance of his mother, as the bodies of all other men are ; 
or whether it was derived from some other source, and 
merely passed through her as a canal of conveyance. Did 



3 See note C. Appendix, 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



31 



he derive from her all that every other man derives from 
a mother? Was he, in short, her son in reality, or in ap- 
pearance only ? Such questions were often, of necessity, 
treated of by the primitive writers. But after being so 
amply discussed by them, we might certainly have hoped 
to be spared the mortification of being compelled to return 
to the discussion, amidst the grey hairs of the world's old 
age. Indeed, I hope that the discussion is in reality totally 
unnecessary. It has, however, been loudly proclaimed, 
that the heresy which denies that Christ has come in the 
flesh, has widely overspread the land, and has deeply in- 
fected the Church. That this charge has been most grossly 
exaggerated I well know. That it is totally groundless 
I am willing to believe, but have no right to assume. I 
shall not, however, enter on the discussion, but shall merely 
state the grounds upon which it may be most decisively 
proved that Christ was truly the Son of Mary, — that the 
contagion of the fall excepted, she imparted to her Son all 
that other mothers impart to their children, — grounds 
which may be insisted upon by those who feel more dis- 
posed to enter upon the discussion than I do ; or who have 
more ample means than I have of knowing that the dis- 
cussion is at all necessary. That Christ was truly the 
Son of Mary, and took his fiesh of her substance, is a most 
important point of Christian doctrine, and may be proved 
by the following arguments. — If he took not a body of the 
substance of his mother, then was his whole life one con- 
tinued scene of deception. Not only did Mary call him 
her son, but he called her his mother, — he was subject 
unto her, and on the cross he manifested his filial duty to 
her by providing for her a home in the house of the be- 
loved disciple. Now, if Mary was not as truly his mother 
as any other woman is the mother of her child, his recog- 
nizing her as his mother, from the beginning to the end of 
his life, was in reality a deception. And, as Tertullian 
most justly remarks, if the Marcionites considered it as a 
degradation of the eternal Word, to suppose that he would 



32 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



submit to be born of woman ; it is surely a much greater 
degradation of him to suppose that he would profess to be 
her son, while in reality he was not. He would much 
rather be the son of Mary in reality, than falsely pretend 
to be so. Again, if he took not flesh of Mary, then is he 
no brother, no kinsman of ours, and his right of redemption 
altogether fails. In this case, he not only is not David's 
son, but he is not the Son of man at all, as he almost uni- 
formly calls himself, — deceptively it must be admitted, un- 
less Mary was truly his mother. Neither in this case 
could we with any truth be said to be u members of his 
body, of his flesh, and of his bones,' 7 if in reality his body 
was a different substance, and derived from a different 
source from ours. Moreover, he could not callus " breth- 
ren," any more than we can apply that appellation to the 
angels that surround the throne of God, or to the worm 
that creepeth in the dust. Fellow-creatures they are, but, 
without an entire community of nature, our u brethren" 
they are not. And when we are required to " put on the 
Lord Jesus Christ," we are required to do what is not 
merely a moral, but a physical impossibility, if there lie 
between us and him the utterly impassable barrier of a 
different nature. If he took not his fleshly substance of 
the flesh of his mother, then not being as truly man as we 
are, he could not fairly meet and conquer our oppressor, 
or at least his victory can give no assurance of victory to 
us. For, to express a very common sentiment in the 
language of Irenaeus, " Had he not been man who conquered 
our enemy, he would not have been fairly conquered ; and, 
on the other hand, had he not been God who gave us the 
victory, we could hold it upon no secure tenure." 1 And, 
finally, if he took not flesh of the substance of Mary, then 
was he not truly the u woman's seed," and the great ori- 
ginal promise, upon which all subsequent promises are built, 

1 Si enira homo non vicisset inimicum hominis, non juste victus esset in- 
imicus. Rursus autem nisi Deus donasset salutem, non firmiter haberemus 
earn. Lib. i. Cap. 36. 



PRELIMINARY OB SERVATIONS . 



33 



remains as yet unfulfilled. But it is not more essential 
that the serpent's head should be bruised at all, than it is 
that it should be bruised by the " woman's seed." Hence 
if Christ was not truly and really the " woman's seed," 
then the whole foundation of our hopes fails. Upon these 
grounds we not only hold it most important to believe, but 
consider it to be most irrefragably proved, that Christ was 
as truly " made of a woman" as we are, — that his body 
was truly a body composed of flesh and blood as ours 
is. 

The question with regard to his soul, to which I referred 
above, is, — Did he take a reasonable soul ? A distinction 
was made, in early times, between the reasonable soul, 
and the sensitive soul or vital principle ; and not a feAv 
heretics maintained that our Saviour took the latter, but 
not the former ; that in him the divinity supplied the 
place of a reasonable soul. This distinction, I observe, 
has been abolished by some of the most celebrated modem 
physiologists, who confound the reasonable soul with the 
vital principle. The distinction, however, I apprehend, 
rests upon the most undeniable grounds, and in this re- 
spect, the ancient heretic has the advantage over the 
modern physiologist. With this, however, I have nothing 
to do ; but, while it is certain that he assumed the vital 
principle, the question is, Did he also assume the reason- 
able soul of man ? I surely cannot be called upon to waste 
any time in the discussion of such a question ; for if there 
be few, if any, who deny the reality of our Lord's body, 
there are, I should think, still fewer who are so utterly 
ignorant of the Gospel, as to deny that he took a reason- 
able soul ; and to maintain that, in him, the divinity 
occupied the place of the soul. Should any discussion be, 
by any, found necessary, they will find that every argu- 
ment which proves that he had a soul at all, proves it to 
have been a reasonable soul. Our belief therefore is, not 
simply that the Word, in being made flesh, took a body 
and soul; but, as our Catechism, with guarded accuracy of 

b 2 



34 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



expression, hath taught us from our childhood, that he 
took " a true body and a reasonable soul." 

That our Lord really had a reasonable soul, seems to 
be sufficiently proved by the fact, that he was made man : 
for this would not be true if he had only a human body ; 
because a human body is not a man, but only part of a 
man. The argument commonly urged by the fathers, 
against the Appollinarians, seems also to be perfectly de- 
cisive. They maintained that there was the same reason 
for his taking a soul as for his taking a body ; for the 
soul had sinned, and needed redemption as well as the 
body. Thus one of them, urging that if that which is in- 
ferior in man was assumed that it might be sanctified by 
the Incarnation, for the same reason must that which is 
superior in man have been assumed, says, "If the clay 
was leavened and became a new mass, Oh, ye wise ones, 
shall not the image be leavened and mingled with God, 
being deified by the divinity ? " 1 

But this view of our Lord's humanity seems to bind us 
down to the adoption of the tenet, that it was fallen, sin- 
ful humanity. For it is acknowledged that his mother 
was a fallen, sinful woman. If, then, his body was 
formed of her substance, then must it, of necessity, have 
been fallen and sinful. This, however, by no means fol- 
lows : for, in the first place, it is not the body of man that 
is fallen, nor the soul of man, but the whole man, consist- 
ing of both. His body, therefore, might be taken of the 

1 E/ 6 ftvfhog z^vft,cd§Y\ KOLi viou (fiu(>Mf(,s>i ysyovsv Co aoCpoi, 7} 

liiot, TYjg SeoTYjTOg ; Gregory Nazianzian. Sermon 51. In a preceding 
part of the same sermon, he observes that " both became one by the mixture, 
God being made man, and man being made God, or however any one may 
choose to express it."— T# yc&Q upc(poTe()oi h ry avyxQOMie^ 0sov 
/aev evoi!t$(>a'7t'Yi<reivTog, av^qcoTrov %s faoS-svrog,, in inragcLvrig ovo- 
fA&aziz* This language, if rigidly interpreted, would lead to error, as there 
could be no mingling of the divinity and humanity, but to an error in direct 
opposition to that which maintains the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity. 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



35 



substance of his mother, as it most certainly was, without 
involving any necessity that he should be a fallen man. 
Next, his body being formed of the substance of his 
mother, no more infers that body to have been in all re- 
spects the same as hers, than the formation of the world 
out of chaos infers the world to be a confused and indi- 
gested mass ; or than the creation of matter out of no- 
thing infers matter to be, as many ancient, and some 
modern philosophers, have determined it to be, nothing, 
or the formation of Adam's body from the dust infers it 
to have been an inanimate clod. Again, the contagion of 
the fall, and the guilt of Adam's first sin, can be propa- 
gated in no other way that we know of, than by ordinary 
generation. But our Lord Jesus Christ, descending from 
Adam in a way altogether singular and extraordinary, 
was not at all involved in the guilt of his sin, nor tainted 
by the contagion of the fall. But upon this subject, I 
shall avail myself of the language of Augustine, which is 
both more appropriate than any I could use, and will 
cany more weight with it. Speaking of the Incarnation, 
he says, " The Word which was made flesh, was in the 
beginning, and was God with God. But, however, his par- 
ticipation of our humiliation, that we might partake of his 
exaltation, held a certain middle course, even in the nati- 
vity of his flesh ; so that we should be born in sinful flesh, 
but he in the likeness of sinful flesh, that we should be born 
not only of flesh and blood, but also of the will of man, 
and of the will of the flesh ; but he only of flesh and blood, 
and not of the will of man, or of the will of the flesh, but 
of God. We, therefore, are bom unto death, on account 
of sin; but he, on account of us, was born unto death 
without sin. And as his humiliation in which he descended 
to us was not, in all respects, equalled to our humiliation 
in which he here found us ; even so our exaltation, in which 
we ascend to him, will not be equalled to his exaltation, in 
which we shall there find him. We shall be made sons 
of God by his grace ; but he was always by nature the 



36 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



Son of God. We, when converted, shall be united to 
God as inferiors ; he never needing conversion, remains 
equal with God. We are made partakers of eternal life ; 
he is eternal life. He alone, therefore, even when made 
man, still remaining God, never had any sin, nor took 
sinful flesh, though he took it of the sinful flesh of his 
mother. For what flesh he took of her, that truly he 
either purified that it might be assumed, or he purified it 
in the assumption. Wherefore, he created whom he 
might choose, and chose, from whom he might be created, 
a virgin mother, not conceiving by the law of sinful flesh, 
that is, by the motion of carnal concupiscence, but by a 
pious faith deserving to have the holy seed formed in hen 
How much more then ought sinful flesh to be baptized, in 
order to escape condemnation^ if that flesh which had no 
sin was baptized as an example for our imitation ? " 1 

What Augustine has written to show, that as the flesh 
of Christ proceeded not from carnal concupiscence, there 

1 Verbum enim quod caro factum est, in prineipio erat, et apud Deum 
Deus erat. Veruntamen ipsa participatio illius in inferiora nostra, ut nostra 
esset in superiora illius, tenuit quandam et in carnis navitate medietatem : 
ut nos quidem nati essemus in came peccati, ille autem in similitudine carnis 
peccati : nos non solum ex carne et sanguine, verum etkm ex voluntate 
viri et ex voluntate carnis, ille autem tantum ex carne et sanguine, non ex 
voluntate viri, neque ex voluntate carnis,. sed ex Deo natus est. Et ideo nos 
in mortem propter peccatum, ille propter nos in mortem sine peccato. Sicut 
autem inferiora ejus, quibus ad nos deseendit, non omni modo cosequata 
sunt inferioribus nostris, in quibus nos hie invenit : sic et superiora nostra, 
quibus ad eum adscendimus, non cosequabuntur superioribus ejus, in quibus 
eum illic inventuri sumus. Nos enim ipsius gratia facti erimus filii Dei, ille 
semper natura erat filius Dei : nos aliquando conversi adhaerebimus impares 
Deo, ille nunquam aversus manet sequalis Deo : nos participes vitse seternae, 
ille vita a?terna. Solus ergo illejetiam homo factus manens Deus, peccatum 
nullum habuit unquam, nec sumsit carnem peccati, quamvis de materna 
carne peccati. Quod enim carnis inde suscepit, id profecto aut suscipiendum 
mundavit, aut suscipiendo mundavit. Ideo virginem matrem, non lege car- 
nis peccati, id est, non concupiscent iee carnalismotu concipientem, sed pia 
fide sanctum germen in se fieri promerentem, quam eligeret creavit, de 
qua crearetur elegit. Quanto magis ergo caro peccati baptizanda est propter 
evadendum judicium, si baptizanda est caro sine peccato propter imitations 
exemplum ? De Peccatorum Meritis, et Remissione, Lib. ii. Cap. 24. 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



87 



was no such concupiscence in him ; and that he conse- 
quently had a perfect holiness, resulting not from the suc- 
cessful repression of all the motions of sin in the flesh, 
but from the total absence of any such motions, would fill 
a larger volume than I have any intention to write. One 
passage more, however, I shall here quote. " For he who 
lusteth after evil things, although, resisting his concupis- 
cence, he perpetrate not the evil, fulfils what is written, 
1 Thou shalt not go after thy lusts ;' yet he does not ful- 
fil what the law saith, 4 Thou shalt not covet.' Christ, 
therefore, who most perfectly fulfilled the law, had no 
evil concupiscence ; because that discord between the 
flesh and the Spirit, which works in the nature of men 
from the sin of the first man, he was altogether free from, 
who was born of the Spirit and a virgin, and not by the 
concupiscence of the flesh. But in us the flesh lusteth 
after evil against the Spirit, so that it will perform the 
evil, unless the Spirit so lust against the flesh as to over- 
come it. You say that the mind of Christ subdued all 
his senses ; but that needs to be subdued which offers re- 
sistance. JSTow the flesh of Christ had nothing unsub- 
dued, nor did it in any thing resist the Spirit, so as to re- 
quire to be subdued by it." 1 

1 Nam qui concupiscit mala, etsi resistens eoncupiscentias suae non ea per- 
petrat, implet quidem quod scriptum est, Post concupiscentias tuas non eas : 
sed non implet quod ait lex, Non concupisces. Christus ergo qui legem per- 
fectissime implevit, nulla illicita concupivit ; quia discordiam carnis et 
Spiritus, quae in hominum naturam ex praevaricatione primi hominis vertit, 
prorsus ille non habuit, qui de Spiritu et virgine non per concupiscentiam 
carnis est natus. In nobis autem caro concupiscit contra spiritum illicita, 
ita ut omnino perficiat, nisi et contra carnem spiritus ita concupiscat, ut 
vincat. Dicis mentem Christi omnium sensuum domitricem : sed hoc do- 
mandum est, resistit : caro autem Christi nihil habebat indomitum, nec 
in aliquo spiritui resistebat, ut ab illo earn domari oporteret. OpeHs imper- 
fecti contra Julianum, Lib. iv. cap. 57. 

In the following page, he charges Julian with outrageous blasphemy in 
equalling the flesh of Christ to the flesh of other men. Immaniter, Juliane, 
blasphemas, coaequans carnem Christi ceterorum hominum carni; nec 
videns ilium venisse non in carne peccati, sed in similitudine carnis peccati. 



38 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



The considerations suggested by Augustine will, I 
think, satisfy the reader that the flesh of Christ, from the 
peculiar mode of its generation, was not at all fallen and 
sinful, like the flesh of all other men. The strong lan- 
guage in which he addresses Julian, — and we shall by 
and by see that this language is moderate to that which 
he occasionally applies to him on the same subject, — 
shows both how very fully he was convinced himself, that 
the flesh of Christ was not fallen nor sinful, and also how 
very warmly he felt upon this subject. 

But farther, while the generation of the flesh of Christ, 
in a manner so very different from that in which all other 
flesh is generated, necessarily leads to the conclusion 
that, in some respects, it was different from other flesh ; 
and that as it was generated without any of that concu- 
piscence which enters into the generatiou of all other flesh, 
the total absence of all concupiscence from his flesh, is the 
very point in which the difference consists ; it will be 
recollected that his flesh was generated by the immediate 
act of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, that if that which 
was generated was fallen and sinful, then the Holy Ghost 
was the doer of this sinful act, the generator of this sinful 
thing. Now, without stopping at present to show that 
this is nothing but an aggravated form of manichoeism, I 
would remark that it is in direct opposition to the very 
letter of the text, which declares that what was generated 
was a " holy thing." Now, what was generated was the 
humanity of our Lord ; which is not called a person, which 
it was not, but a thing. And the declaration refers not to 
what would be the future character of that humanity, as 
founded upon the acts of our Lord's life, but to his charac- 
ter as generated. And when the Evangelist declares, 
in language as express and unequivocal as can be used, 
that he was generated holy, the man who maintains, in 
direct opposition to this,, that he was generated fallen and 
sinful, — that he needed, or that he was capable of re- 
generation, maintains a tenet to which, we can be 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



39 



deemed chargeable with no severity, when we apply the 
language addressed by Augustine to Julian, who, as I shall 
afterwards have occasion to show, was guilty of no such 
impiety. Besides, if he needed regeneration, where was he 
to find it ? The Holy Ghost is the regenerator. Where 
he works, all is purity. But if he, in the first instance, 
generated him fallen and sinful, — and perhaps I ought to 
apologise even for so impious a supposition, — then I cannot 
conceive either why he should, or how he could, after- 
wards correct the defect of his own work. That he was 
generated holy, the text expressly declares ; but if he were 
not, I would ask upon what principle he could be regener- 
ated ? or what purpose could that regeneration possibly 
answer ? If in his generation the Holy Ghost failed to ge- 
nerate him holy, he failed either through lack of power, or 
through lack of will. If he failed through lack of power, 
— supposing this to be possible — then he could not after- 
wards regenerate him, as he could assuredly bring no ad- 
ditional power to the work. And if he failed through lack 
of will, then he, by his own immediate act, chose to pro- 
duce a being who not only was capable of, but who actu- 
ally needed, and received regeneration. 

Moreover, the generation of Christ was miraculous. It 
indeed did so far surpass all miracles, being the very event 
for which all the previous arrangements of the world were 
made, that it is perhaps by an accommodation of language 
only that it can be called a miracle at all. But a miracle 
surely could not be wrought by God, without having some 
beneficial result in view ; and a result which could not be 
produced by any other means. But if the flesh of Christ 
was fallen and sinful, then was a miracle wrought to pro- 
duce that which would have been, with unerring certain- 
ty, produced without it. And if it be a point of faith of 
vital importance to believe, that the flesh of Christ was 
fallen sinful flesh, then did God work a miracle which was 
not only useless, as the result would have been better pro- 
duced without it, but directly pernicious. For it is plain 



40 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS. 



that the miraculous conception naturally leads us to sup- 
pose that the flesh of Christ was not fallen and sinful, and 
thus throws a great degree of doubt and distrust over a 
transaction, with regard to which, had the miracle been 
spared us, no doubt whatever could possibly have existed. 
Upon the whole, the verse in which the angel announces 
the incarnation, does so very clearly show, that the flesh 
of Christ did differ from the flesh of other men, and shows 
also so distinctly in what that difference consists, namely, 
in that it was generated holy, as no other flesh ever was, 
and consequently never needed, nor was ever susceptible of, 
regeneration, that had I no other object in view than to 
prove this, I should not deem it necessary to write another 
line upon the subject. But a particular view of the work 
which Christ did in the flesh, besides affording abundant 
proofs that he was not fallen and sinful, will also lead us 
to considerations which possess an interest and an useful- 
ness altogether independent of this point, — a point, how- 
ever, let it not be forgotten, than which not one of more 
vital importance is to be found within the whole range of 
Christian theology. I shall therefore proceed to take a 
view of the different offices which Christ executes as our 
Redeemer; and we shall then be able to determine 
whether these are offices which could be sustained by a 
fallen sinful man. It is perhaps a matter of little conse- 
quence, to which of these offices we first direct our atten- 
tion. In the application of the benefits of his offices to us, 
his sacerdotal office takes the precedence. We cannot be 
enlightened by him as our Prophet, nor renovated by him 
as our King, nor can any act of grace be exercised toward 
us, till we be pardoned by him as our Priest. Justification 
is the first step in the progress of the sinner's salvation. 
Till this be granted to him, no grace and no virtue can be 
conferred upon him. Did he possess any Christian grace, 
previous to his justification, there might be some ground 
for supposing that his justification was founded upon his 
possession of these graces, and was the effect instead of 



PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS 



41 



the cause of them. When a king exalts to high rank, and 
employs in important offices, a man who was formerly in 
a state of rebellion against him, it is evident that the 
guilt of the rebellion must first have been forgiven. In 
the same way when a man is possessed of any Christian 
grace, we know that he could receive it from Christ alone ; 
and that his possession of it is a proof that his sins have 
been all forgiven. The sacerdotal office of Christ, there- 
fore, is the office the benefits of which are first applied to 
us. Perhaps, however, it may be more natural to con- 
sider his offices in the order of our perception of their 
application, and thus to begin with his prophetic office . 
For we must be enlightened by him as our Prophet, before 
we can see our need of being pardoned by him as our 
Priest, or sanctified by him as our King, 



CHAPTER II. 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 

It has been already observed that Christ was Prophet, 
Priest, and King, from the beginning. This is abundantly 
certain from the fact that Abel and other patriarchs were 
saved, that is, they were pardoned, enlightened, and 
sanctified. But this they could not be, excepting by the 
Mediator in the exercise of all his offices. There were 
many prophets before the incarnation of our Lord ; but if 
ever there was a true prophet who did not derive his 
commission from him alone, then so far his work of 
mediation ceased, and our salvation was wrought out by 
another. But if there never was any other Saviour than 
Christ, then there never was any other prophet than he ; 
and the prophets that preceded his coming were merely 
his delegates, commissioned by him, and totally unable 
either to abridge or to enlarge the message given to them. 

The duty of Christ, as our Prophet, is to reveal to us the 
Father, as he saith, " Neither knoweth any man the 
Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son 
will reveal him ;" and again it is said, " No man hath 
seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is 
in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." Now, 
how did Christ reveal to us the Father ? Not by any 
set proofs of his existence, nor by any abstract discussions 
upon his nature or character, nor by didactic discourses, 
but by action ; a mode of instruction as level to the 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



43 



comprehension of the meanest capacity, as to that of the 
loftiest ; as intelligible to the peasant as to the philosopher. 
He taught ns, for example, that God is Holy. But how 
did he do this? Not by any set dissertations on his 
holiness, but by the unceasing and spotless holiness of his 
own conduct. Never were allurements more enticing 
than those by which he was sometimes solicited, and 
never were trials so severe as those to which he was 
commonly exposed, and never were testimonies so nume- 
rous, unequivocal, and decisive, as those by which it is 
proved that by no allurement was he ever enticed, by no 
trial was he ever pressed into a deviation, or into any 
thing approaching a wish to deviate, from the path of 
duty. Not only could he himself challenge his bitterest 
foes to convince him of sin, but the testimony of his friends 
and foes alike concurs to assure us that he " did no sin," 
and that in his mouth no guile was found. In the same 
manner he teaches us that God is Good, not by regular 
proofs of this in his discourses, but by the constant 
exhibition of it in his practice. When the infirm and 
the distressed applied to him, the application was never 
made in vain. He never said to the applicant, you are 
of too abandoned a character for notice, and richly 
deserve all the miseries that you endure ; or, your disease 
is of too desperate a nature, or of too long standing, to 
admit of relief. No, but his language was, " If thou canst 
believe, all things are possible to him that believeth." 
And while he was literally fulfilling the prediction which 
thus spoke of the blessings of his coming, — " then the eyes 
of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall 
be unstopped ; then shall the lame man leap as an hart, 
and the tongue of the dumb shall sing he was, in so 
doing, giving proof of his power and his readiness to give 
a far higher accomplishment to this happy prediction, 
by healing the spiritual diseases, of which those of the 
body are only feeble, however painful, symptoms. And 
when he went about doing good, and healing all manner 



44 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



of diseases, we are expressly taught that the design of his 
so doing, was to lead men to apply to him for blessings of 
a higher order, and to convince them of his power and his 
readiness to confer these blessings. Thus when the scribes 
murmured at hearing him say to the man who was sick of 
the palsy, " Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins be forgiven 
thee," he asked them, " Whether is it easier to say, Thy 
sins be forgiven thee ; or to say, Arise and walk ?" very 
plainly intimating that he who had the power and the will 
to do the one, had no less the power and the will to do the 
other, a truth which he proceeded still more directly to 
teach, saying, — u But that ye may know that the Son of 
man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to 
the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto 
thine house." Here ability to command the sick man to 
arise and walk is, by our Lord himself, adduced as a 
convincing proof of his power to forgive sin. Indeed, as 
disease is just the effect of sin, nothing can well be clearer 
than that he who can, by the word of authority, heal the 
one, can also forgive the other. 

Now, he who exhibited this unceasing holiness, and this 
unlimited goodness, was God with us, God manifest in the 
flesh. And such as he was in the world, even such is 
God. If we wish to know the character of God, we shall 
find it revealed there, where the life of Jesus is recorded. 
Hence the following most distinct language is used by our 
Lord himself on this subject : "If ye had known me, ye 
should have known my Father also : and from henceforth 
ye know him, and have seen him." Philip saith unto 
him, " Lord, show us the Father, and it sufficeth us. 
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, 
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip ? He that hath 
seen me hath seen the Father ; and how sayest thou then, 
Show us the Father ?" Hence, too, when we are called 
upon to combat the fears that take possession of the 
awakened soul, and the arguments which ignorance and 
unbelief raise up, in the heart of the convinced sinner, 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



45 



against faith and hope, we find the record of our Saviour's 
life one of the best and most efficient grounds on which 
they may be combated. We say with powerful effect to 
the sinner, under these circumstances, He, whose good- 
ness was so unlimited, was God manifested in the flesh, 
and manifested there for this very purpose, that we might 
see with our own eyes, and have the most perfect know- 
ledge of the gracious dispositions of God toward us. If 
you say that you admit the general proposition, that there 
is mercy with God for sinners, but dare not specifically 
apply the general proposition to your own individual case, 
and hope that there is mercy for you, then we say that 
you are negativing not only his manifold and gracious de- 
clarations, whereby he encourages the weary and heavy 
laden to come to him, that they may find peace and rest ; 
but you are negativing the import of the lesson taught by 
the whole course of his conduct. For, from that exercise 
of inconceivable goodness which he manifested when, 
leaving the glory which he had with the Father before 
the world began, he condescended to become obnoxious 
to every suffering which human nature knows, in that flesh 
which he took into personal union with himself, down to 
that other equally inconceivable exercise of goodness which 
he manifested, when he bowed his head and gave up the 
ghost, giving his own life for that of a lost world, what 
one act in the whole course of his earthly existence is not 
in most perfect accordance with the grace and the good- 
ness, which distinguished alike its commencement and its 
close ? What wretch ever applied to him, and was sent 
away unrelieved ? Whom olid he ever ask, by what right, 
or on the ground of what merit, they laid claim to his in- 
terposition in their favour ? Whom did he ever reproach 
with the guilt that had brought their miseries upon them ? 
If he healed the sick, and raised the dead, if out of one he 
cast seven devils, and dispossessed another of a whole legion, 
it was for the very purpose of convincing you, that there 
is no limit either to his power or his willingness to heal 



40 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



your spiritual sickness, to quicken you from your death in 
sin. You have the same access to him now, that the 
miserable had when he was on earth. What he was then, 
he is now. He asks no questions as to the past. He asks 
not if you be laden with the sins of a few days, or with 
the sins of many years. He asks not if your crimes be few 
or many, slight or aggravated. They all lie equally 
within the compass of his power ; and his only question 
is, " Wilt thou be made whole?" If, for a moment, he re- 
fused the woman of Syrophenicia, it was only to teach you 
the happy effect of persevering and importunate prayer. 
If he refused her for a moment, it was only the more em- 
phatically to teach this truth, that he will never refuse, — 
that whosoever cometh unto him shall not be denied. 

And if the life of Christ was in reality a living manifes- 
tation of all the perfections of God, and if we know God, 
because God has verily dwelt in the flesh amongst us, 
then it is obvious, not merely that the Son, who became 
our Prophet, to reveal unto us the Father, must of neces- 
sity become flesh, since in no other way that we know 
could he make that revelation ; but it is not less obviously 
necessary, that the flesh which he took should be perfectly 
holy, else it is not conceivable how his life could afford us 
any exhibition of the holiness of God. He might have 
showed to us the holiness of a man, such as Abraham or 
Moses, carried to a higher degree of perfection, even to the 
extent of avoiding all actual transgression of the law of 
God. But if his flesh was really sinful, if it ever felt the 
slightest propensity or inclination to sin, — an inclination 
which required to be repressed, in order to prevent it 
from proceeding to actual guilt, then this propensity was 
itself criminal, — it was just that carnal concupiscence, 
that lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, which we de- 
rive from the fall, and which effectually disqualified him 
in whom it dwelt from giving any practical revelation of 
the divine holiness in his life. He was exactly in the 
situation of other fallen men ; he might be a very bright 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



47 



monument of divine grace ; but the revealer of God, — the 
author of the grace of illumination, he could no more be, 
than any other fallen and regenerated man. Of that grace 
he might have received a richer abundance than any other 
fallen man ever received ; but he stood in exactly the 
same predicament as they did, and, therefore, though per- 
haps we cannot reasonably hope to receive quite as large 
a measure of that wisdom which maketh wise unto salva- 
tion, from Abraham, " the friend of God," or from Aaron, 
the " saint of the Lord," or from Paul, "the apostle of the 
Gentiles," as from him in whom the work of regeneration 
had a more perfect operation than it had in them ; yet 
assuredly the same principle that authorizes us to expect 
that grace from one fallen and regenerated man, author- 
izes us to expect the same grace, though perhaps in a 
somewhat inferior degree, from any other fallen and regen- 
erated man. And this is not the only point on which the 
doctrine of our Lord's fallen humanity gives the most di- 
rect and decisive sanction to the worship of the Saints : the 
sanction becomes still stronger and more decisive, when we 
reflect, that though we may probably expect a more abun- 
dant measure of wisdom from Christ, than from any other 
fallen and regenerated man, yet we may unquestionably 
expect the highest measure of that wisdom, when we seek 
it both from him, and also from all other fallen and re- 
generated men. In him, indeed, that concupiscence of 
the flesh, which characterizes fallen man, might be kept 
as " a spring shut up, and a fountain sealed," from which 
no emanation of actual guilt was ever permitted to pro- 
ceed. The motions of sin in the flesh might in him be so 
powerfully and successfully repressed, that it might be 
truly said of him in whom these motions wrought, that he 
" did no sin ;" but with what truth it could be said of him, 
whose whole life was an unceasing, however successful, 
struggle against the will of the flesh, compelling " the 
flesh against its will," into however perfect a harmony 
with the will of God, that he " knew no sin," is to me alto- 



48 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



gether incomprehensible. If the concupiscence of the 
flesh existed in him at all, however successfully subdued, 
it existed as the germ of all actual transgression, — as con- 
taining in it the elements of all human guilt, — as the ob- 
ject of just wrath, and deserved punishment, — as that 
which can be rendered fit for communion with God, only 
through that shedding of blood, without which there can 
be no remission, and, consequently, totally depriving him 
in whom it existed of all claim to the title, and of all 
power to accomplish the purposes, of a u Lamb without 
blemish, and without spot." 

But in order to see all the fulness with which he dis- 
charged the duties resulting from his prophetic character, 
and learn from his discharge of them all the knowledge 
which it is fitted and intended to convey, we must look, 
not merely to his life, but still more especially to his 
death. He was a Prophet on the cross, as well as u a 
Priest on the throne," and not the less a King on both. 
And whatever knowledge of the character of God we de- 
rive from the life of Christ, is both carried out to a greater 
extent, and taught with a more impressive emphasis, by 
his death. By his life we are taught that God is good, 
and the sinner is powerfully encouraged to come to him 
for pardon and for peace. But it was on the cross that he 
gave the highest exhibition of the Divine goodness. To 
all his creatures the goodness of God was known, but 
to none of them was the infinite and inconceivable extent 
of that goodness known till Christ died on the cross. 
When man fell, had God freely forgiven the rebel, and 
by a word restored him to perfect purity, and placed him 
in a state of impeccable stability, this would have been an 
act of "unexampled goodness. Still, however, the good- 
ness which forgave the rebel, supposing it possible to for- 
give him by a mere act of grace, might very possibly not 
be infinite. As such an act, however, could by no possi- 
bility be performed, without throwing doubt on all the 
Divine perfections, and producing the most disastrous 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



40 



consequences throughout the universe, the next and only 
method which created wisdom could have suggested, for 
the treatment of the rebels, would be, to give up the 
fallen pair to him to whose suggestions they had listened, 
in opposition to the command of God ; to cut off the 
stream of iniquity by drying up its source, and people the 
world anew with less feeble creatures. This also, how- 
ever, would have left an indelible reflection on the wisdom 
and the power of God, for having made at all, creatures 
whom he found it necessary to dispose of in such a man- 
ner. But when they heard of the Incarnation, when they 
heard that the Eternal Word, who spoke the world into 
being, was himself to be made flesh, and in the weakness 
of flesh was to go forth into that world of which Satan 
had become the god, and to meet him in his own domain, 
and to contend with him and all his powers on his own 
ground, and by his own deeds, and his own sufferings, to 
take away the captives of the mighty, and to redeem the 
prey of the terrible, — and when they saw all this actually 
accomplished, then had they a view of the goodness of 
God, far beyond aught that they could possibly have had 
before. When they saw God willing to redeem from their 
captivity, and to ransom from destruction, creatures whose 
utter and final perdition could not have affected, in the slight- 
est degree, his happiness or glory, with no less a price than 
the blood of his own well-beloved Son, it is no matter of 
surprise that they, delighted to be thus assured, not only 
that God is good, but that his goodness is absolutely infinite, 
should, as well as the redeemed from among men, celebrate 
the death of Christ, in the most exalted strains of gratitude 
and adoration, as we are assured by John in the Revela- 
tion, that they do, when he says, " And I beheld, and I 
heard the voice of many angels round about the throne, 
and the beasts, and the elders ; and the number of them 
was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of 
thousands ; saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the 
Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and 

c 



50 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and bless- 
ing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the 
earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, 
and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and 
honour, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon 
the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever." 1 And 
well might the same writer, when contemplating the 
goodness of God, as it is set forth in the unspeakable 
value of the price by which he purchased our safety, thus 
speak of it, " In this was manifested the love of God to- 
wards us, because that God sent his only begotten Son 
into the world, that we might live through him. Herein 
is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and 
sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 2 The 
love of God is indeed thus manifested to be something, 
the extent of which no language may describe, and no 
heart may conceive : and the redeemed of the Lord, while 
throughout eternity his love flows forth to them, in an 
ever-increasing weight of glory and blessedness, will feel 
no misgivings, lest he who thus blesseth them should grow 
weary in the exercise of his love, and should come to a 
limit beyond which they shall not go in its enjoyment, for 
they can ever look back to the cross of Christ, where the 
death of our Prophet gave an ineffaceable and irrefragable 
demonstration that the love of God is truly boundless and 
exhaustless, and passing all understanding. 

Now, is it possible that the life of Christ, clear, and 
distinct, and decisive as are the manifestations of the love 
and goodness of God which it affords, could have mani- 
fested that love and goodness to as great an extent, or 
have given so impressive and indubitable a demonstra- 
tion of them, as that which we derive from his death ? 
Every reader will readily answer, No. It was through 
his whole life, but still more especially and emphatically 
in his death, that our great Prophet revealed unto us the 



1 Rev. v. 11. 



2 1 J ohn iv. 9. 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



51 



Father. Then it follows that he died as a Prophet, not 
less than as a Priest ; or, in other words, it was from his 
death as a sacrifice to expiate our sins, that we derive the 
highest instruction, which, as our Prophet, he came to 
teach us. Had God sent his Son merely to instruct us by 
his doctrine, this would have been a great proof of love ; 
but it might still have been supposed that that love was 
limited, that though he gave him to be our instructor, yet 
he would not give him up to suffering for our sakes. But 
when Christ actually died, then was the love of God proved 
to be truly infinite ; " For greater love hath no man than 
this, that he should lay down his life for his Mends." But 
Christ had greater love than this, for he laid down his life 
even for strangers and enemies. But what mighty proof 
of love was this, if Christ was really a fallen sinful man ? 
In that case his death could be of no avail to us, and could 
afford us no proof that the love of God is infinite. But it 
was essentially necessary on his own account, for if he were 
fallen, he needed regeneration, having been generated by 
the Holy Ghost, a sinful thing ; and regeneration can be 
perfected only through the medium of death. 1 And if he 
died to perfect his own regeneration, then his death is no 
more to us than the death of any other fallen, sinful, but 
regenerated man ; nor can I see how the love of God to- 
ward us is displayed in the one case more than in the 
other. 

But supposing that the death of Christ was not at all 
necessary on his own account, but was endured solely for 
our sakes, then the demonstration of the love of God which 

1 This position will be disputed by those who have adopted the Pelagian 
tenet, that sinless perfection is attainable in this life. To me the fact appears 
just as little liable to dispute, as any other fact that falls under our daily ob- 
servation. While we are in the flesh, the flesh will lust against the Spirit ; and 
the concupiscence of the flesh is sin. I cannot be expected, however, in pro- 
secuting one controversy, to plunge myself into another. They who wish to 
enter upon the question, will find it amply and ably discussed by Augustine, 
in his writings against the Pelagians, especially in his treatises — De Peccato- 
rum Meritis et Remissione, De Litera et Spiritu, and De Perfectione Justifies 
Hominis. 



52 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



it affoids becomes much more distinct and impressive, 
when viewed in connection with that demonstration of the 
exceedingly hateful and malignant nature of sin, which was 
given by the same event. If the evil of sin be small, then 
the love that forgives it is not great, and, therefore, the 
death of Christ would not be a proof of the infinite love of 
God, unless it were also a proof of the infinite evil of sin. 
That the evil of sin is infinite is easily proved by abstract 
reasoning ; for its direct tendency is to dethrone God, and 
thus destroy the universe. But God does not teach us 
truths of importance, by abstract reasonings which require 
close thinking to apprehend, but by practical demonstra- 
tions which are alike intelligible to all. And the death of 
Christ is the practical illustration, not only that sin is evil, 
but that its evil is infinite. When sin was first introduced 
into the dominions of God, some demonstration of its evil 
was given in the punishment inflicted on the offenders. 
That demonstration, however, was comparatively trifling. 
In them it was not immediately punished to the full ex- 
tent of its demerit, nor, consequently, to the full extent of 
its evil shown. And had these first offenders been at once 
and freely forgiven, could this by any possibility have been 
done, it would have afforded a comparatively trifling ma- 
nifestation of the grace of God. Before that grace could 
be seen in all its glory, sin must first be seen in all its ma- 
lignity. And this could not be seen merely in the fall of 
angels. One of its most awful characteristics their fall 
could not show. I refer to its generative nature, — its 
capability of being propagated from race to race through 
successive generations. Whatever number of angels there 
were who kept not their first state, each fell by his own 
personal act ; and to however many other sins that first 
sin might give rise in the individual, this was only a proof 
that sin once admitted into the heart would propagate it- 
self there ; but could give no idea of another fact, which 
far more fearfully demonstrates the malignity of sin, — 
namely, that sin might be committed under such circum- 



CHRtST OUR PROPHET. 53 

stances, as would render it just in God to cause the poison 
of that sin to pass from the actual transgressor to unnum- 
bered millions of other responsible creatures, connected in 
a particular manner with the transgressor, so as to involve 
them all in his guilt and in his doom. Till man fell, and 
the result of his fall was seen, it could not be known that 
such was the malignity of sin, that one sin of one man was 
sufficient to diffuse guilt and* misery through all genera- 
tions of men. One sin thus committed, under circum- 
stances which afforded it an opportunity for producing all 
its natural and proper effects, gave a much more impres- 
sive view of its native malignity than the fall of angels 
could possibly do. Many proofs of the hatefulness of sin 
have been given, such as the sweeping away of a guilty 
world by the flood, — the sudden destruction of u the cities 
of the plain," — the devotion of the Amorites to extermina- 
tion, when the measure of their iniquities was full. And 
all the madness, and folly, and guilt, and misery, that 
abound on earth, and every sin, and every sorrow, of every 
individual, when viewed, as it ought always to be, in con- 
nection with the original source whence it sprung, are all 
affecting and convincing proofs — proofs coming home to 
the bosom of every man who is capable of feeling — how 
evil a thing and bitter sin is ; while, at the same time, 
they are proving that the u evil figment" of man's heart, 
the u root of bitterness," is at this day as vigorous, and 
fresh, and flourishing, and fruitful, as it was at the begin- 
ning ; and while they are showing how one sin of one man, 
when committed under circumstances favourable to the de- 
velopment of its proper effects, is capable of resulting in 
the actual guilt and temporal sufferings of all, and in the 
final condemnation of many. 

And when this demonstration of the malignity of sin has 
been for ages exhibited to the examination of men and of 
angels, when we have seen one sin spreading its contami- 
nation over a whole world, and over all generations of 
men, and showing its poison in the production of a guilt 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



and a misery that baffle all calculation and all conception,, 
is this demonstration, overwhelming though it be, the 
most painful, and the most awful, exhibition of the u ex- 
ceeding sinfulness of sin," which God hath given to angels 
and to men? No. Notwithstanding this demonstration, 
the evil of sin, inconceivable as it is shown to be, might 
yet have a limit, and its misery might have an end. 
Therefore, a demonstration more striking still, and one 
which may prove that the evil of sin is truly and properly 
infinite, was wanted ; lest men, ever apt to undervalue 
that evil, should come to think that the sufferings of life, 
and the pangs of death, form a sufficient expiation for it. 
The only begotten Son of God is sent forth to teach us this, 
among other things, that the holiness of God is something 
far beyond all conception, — that his aversion to sin is 
wholly unalterable, — and that, in short, there is a hateful- 
ness in sin, which we can no more comprehend than we 
can comprehend the perfections of God. We have seen 
the effects of one sin, and these are disastrous beyond all 
calculation. But the death of our Divine Prophet affords / 
a demonstration even beyond this, else it would not have 
been given. When angels saw him, whom they were ac- 
customed to worship, go forth into the world " in the 
likeness of sinful flesh," — when they saw him take upon 
himself the penalty due to the sins of a lost world, — when 
they saw him undertake to pay a debt of such incalculable 
magnitude, they would be ready to say, 4 Surely it is suffi- 
cient that he has had goodness enough to undertake for 
these fallen creatures ! The debt will not be in reality ex- 
acted ; the penalty will not be unsparingly inflicted. The 
sins which could not be forgiven to the creature will be 
freely forgiven to the only begotten and well-beloved Son, 
when he has taken them upon himself. A little may be 
exacted, in order to prove the reality of his suretyship ; a 
little may be inflicted, in order to prove the reality of his 
substitution ; but surely the whole will never be either re- 
quired or inflicted. The transgressions of the law, which 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. V 

could not be forgiven to the actually guilty creature, may 
well be forgiven, when they become, by imputation, the 
transgressions of him who is above the law. He will 
spare the Son.' But no, not one pang due to our guilt 
was withheld, not one drop of gall which guilt had mingled 
in our cup, was abstracted from his. " The Lord hath laid 
on him the iniquity of us all and he is able to forgive 
every sin, because there is no sin, the bitterness resulting 
from which he did not feel to the full. And this is what 
constitutes his death, so awful and solemn, and impressive 
a demonstration, beyond all other demonstrations, of the 
infinite and inconceivable holiness of God, and of the un- 
speakable hatefulness of sin, that though he who took our 
iniquities upon himself was the well-beloved Son, yet not 
one pang due to guilt was spared him. 

But what becomes of this demonstration, if Christ was 
fallen and sinful ? His death was then no greater a demon- 
stration of the evil of sin than our own. He took our sins 
upon him, and in consequence of the imputation of them, 
even though he was the well-beloved Son, he was not for- 
given, but died for them. But if this assumption of our 
sins was not the sole ground of his death, if he was bound 
to die on some other ground besides the imputation of our 
sins, then the doctrine of imputation itself begins to be 
doubtful ; for we have it only declared in words, but not 
exhibited in clear and unequivocal action : and, moreover, 
it is in vain to look to the cross of Christ for the most de- 
cisive and impressive proof that was ever given of the in- 
finite holiness of God, and hatefulness of sin ; for he was 
only in the situation of ah infant, which is fallen and sin- 
ful, but guiltless of actual transgression. From the death 
of such an infant, we learn quite as much of the holiness 
of God, and the evil of sin, as we learn from the cross of 
Christ, if he was fallen and sinful. Under the sanction of 
such a principle, it certainly cannot be matter of surprise, 
if the necessity of an atonement should be denied, and sin 
should be considered as something sufficiently slight, to be 



56 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



abundantly expiated by our own sufferings and death. 
But if we reject the tenet that Christ was fallen and sinful, 
and died because he was so, then does his cross afford such 
a fearful proof of the evil of sin, as the universe never saw 
before, nor can ever see again. And that proof of the sin- 
fulness of sin involves in it also a new and most impres- 
sive illustration of the goodness and grace of God, proving 
it to be truly infinite. For if such be the hatefulness of 
sin, that even when the Son took our sins upon him, not 
one pang due to them was spared him, then we not only 
say, how great is the goodness of God in giving up his 
Son to death for the sake of any creatures, however ex- 
alted, and however pure 1 but we also say, how inconceiv- 
ably great is his goodness, in giving up his Son to death 
for the sake of creatures, so deeply involved in all the pol- 
lutions of that abominable thing which God so unalterably 
hates! Well might the apostle say, "For scarcely for a 
righteous man will one die ; yet peradventure for a good 
man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his 
love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ 
died for us." 1 And well might he also say, as he does in 
the same chapter, u Where sin abounded, grace did much 
more abound." For if such be the malignity of sin, that 
one sin of one man could involve the whole human race in 
guilt and condemnation, — nay, could bring the Son of God 
to the cross, — how great is that grace of God, which for- 
gives, not one sin of one man, but innumerable sins of in- 
numerable men ! 

Upon this point, then, we are irresistibly led to the con- 
clusion, that our Divine Prophet was not fallen or sinful. 
A demonstration of the same thing might be drawn from a 
similar course of remarks on the truth and justice of God. 
It is in the cross of Christ that we see these perfections 
operating, under circumstances which prove them to be in- 
finite. But if Christ was fallen and sinful, this proof alto- 

1 Romans v. 7. 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



57 



gether fails. I shall only farther show, however, under 
this head, how the death of Christ proves the Immutability 
of God, as it is most necessary that we should be well 
assured of this. Of the existence of this perfection the 
history of the world affords many striking illustrations. 
Many things occurred to induce God, if change with him 
had been possible, to change his purpose of grace and 
mercy to a fallen world. The history of the antediluvian 
ages shows us men, not, as might have been expected, 
mourning over the dismal consequences of the fall, and 
walking in all the humility of deep penitence before the 
God whom they had offended, and cherishing with feelings 
of heartfelt gratitude the happy hopes which he had graci- 
ously held out to them ; but, on the contrary, devoted to 
every species of wickedness, and carrying their guilt to 
such an extent as to render it necessary to sweep away the 
whole race. Yet, even in the infliction of this terrible 
judgment, God in the midst of wrath remembered mercy, 
and preserved one family, that through them the promise 
that the woman's seed should bruise the serpent's head 
might be fulfilled, and the immutability of his purpose 
might be made manifest. 

Again, when Israel was chosen, that to that nation might 
be committed the " oracles of God," and that they might 
be placed under a dispensation preparatory to the coming 
of the promised Messiah, how constantly did they prove 
themselves to be truly a stiff-necked and rebellious people ! 
Not all the wonders that they saw in Egypt, at the Red 
Sea, and in the wilderness, — not their own constant expe- 
rience of the happiness of obedience, and of the miserable 
consequences of rebellion, — in short, nothing could wean 
them from their idolatries. How often had God to give 
them up into the hands of their enemies ! But nothing could 
induce him to cast them off. Their unbelief could not make 
his faithfulness of none effect. " I am Jehovah ; I change 
not ; therefore, the sons of Jacob are not consumed." 
Notwithstanding all their provocations, therefore, they 

c2 



58 



CHKIST OUR PROPHET. 



were still preserved till the promise was fulfilled, and the 
u Consolation of Israel" sent. And even now that, for 
their rejection of the Messiah, they have been, for many 
ages, sifted like wheat among all nations, and have become 
a byword and a reproach among all people, the same im- 
mutability which performed former promises will yet fulfil 
that which teaches us to hope that the veil shall yet be 
taken away from the hearts of that people, when Israel 
shall turn unto the Lord and be saved. 

That God persevered in the accomplishment of a purpose 
which every thing in the history of the world in general, 
and of his own chosen people in particular, strongly pro- 
voked him to abandon, is a great and impressive proof of 
his immutability. But a still greater was wanted ; for 
though nothing in the history of the world could produce 
any change in him, yet that does not prove that change 
with him is impossible. But a complete proof of the utter 
impossibility of change in him is given in the death of 
Christ. When all our iniquities were laid upon him, and 
the penalty of them all was exacted of him, will not God, in 
such a case as this, relax a little of the firmness of his pur- 
pose, and manifest some slight disposition to change ? 
When he beholds the agonies that rend the spotless soul of 
Jesus with unutterable anguish ; when he hears his strong 
cryings, and sees his tears, and the shrinking and shudder- 
ing of nature, not at the thought of death, but of that hour 
and power of darkness, by which death was preceded, 
when the malice of men, and the power of Satan, and the 
curse of a broken law, were all let loose against him, will 
not God, under such circumstances as these, relent in 
favour of his well-beloved Son ? Will he not interfere to 
confound the malice of men, to wither up the power of 
Satan, and to abate the demands of the law? No. He 
will not change even now, and thus he gives the most de- 
cisive proof that never, on any occasion, is it possible for 
him to change. Even when the pains of hell got hold of 
his well-beloved Son, and the sorrows of death encom- 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



59 



passed him around, and he found trouble and sorrow, such 
as mortal man may never adequately conceive, God mani- 
fested no variableness, and no shadow of turning. If he 
had, what would have been the consequence ? A God 
capable of change, and governing by a law which had been 
violated, without its demands being fully satisfied, and its 
penalty fully inflicted, would have been the object present- 
ed to the view of angels ; an object which it is obvious 
they never could have contemplated without terror and 
alarm. The love of an earthly parent to a child is but a 
faint shadow of that love with which the Father regards 
his Son in whom his soul delighted. And never was im- 
mutability put to such an awful test, as when the accom- 
plishment of his purpose, with regard to a guilty and 
polluted race, required him to give up this Son to sufferings 
of the most fearful description ; and never was result so 
glorious, and never could conviction, by any possibility, 
be deeper than that which was impressed upon the hosts 
of heaven, that in God they could never henceforth dread 
any change. And the powers of darkness know, that God, 
who withdrew not his well-beloved Son from one pang 
that the imputed guilt of an apostate world entitled them 
to inflict upon him, until he was enabled to say, 41 It is 
finished," is a God who cannot, by any possibility, change. 
And the believer in Jesus knows, that the God who gave 
up his Son to die for him is a God who can never change ; 
and he rejoices to know, that if God hath chosen him to sal- 
vation, through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the 
truth, there is then nothing in heaven above, or in hell be- 
neath, that can separate him from the love of God which is 
in Christ Jesus. And let the thoughtless, heedless, careless 
sinner know, that God can never change ; that his threaten- 
ings are as unalterable as his promises. He is satisfying 
himself, it may be, with some vague, undefined, and un- 
founded reliance upon the uncovenanted mercies of God ; 
and soothing away the alarms of a guilty conscience by 
saying, — God is merciful. And merciful he is, — beyond 



60 



CHRIST OUR, PROPHET. 



what heart can conceive, but merciful to those only who 
seek his mercy in the appointed way. The sinner thinks, 
perhaps, that a few prayers and tears, wrung from him at 
the last trying hour, may prevail on a being so merciful to 
save him from the fearful and irreversible doom denounced 
against sinners. But look to the cross of Christ. Had 
change with God been possible, under any circumstances, 
would he not have changed the sentence which declares 
that u The wages of sin is death," when it was his own 
well-beloved Son upon whom that death was to be inflict- 
ed, and inflicted with every circumstance of unmitigated 
agony ? And if he spared not his own Son, dare you ven- 
ture to hope that he will spare you, as if he loved you 
better than he loved him ? He abated not one iota of the 
demands of the law in the case of Christ, and will he abate 
its demands for you ? He forgave not imputed sin in 
Christ, and will he forgive actual guilt in you ? With un- 
changing and unaltering purpose, he said of him, u Awake, 
O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that 
is my fellow," and can you hope that the sword which was 
made so sharp to him shall be sheathed for you ? You 
hope for that which the cross of Christ proclaims to be an 
impossibility. Away, then, with the delusive, the destruc- 
tive hope, and flee to him in whom alone safety is to be 
found. 

We know, then, that God is absolutely incapable of 
change. It is most essential for our welfare to know 
this. We can draw proofs of it from various sources, but 
complete demonstration of it is afforded by the cross of 
Christ alone. But if Christ was fallen and sinful, then the 
demonstration entirely fails. Nor does the remark apply 
to the attribute of Immutability alone. We can produce 
the most irresistible proof of every particular in this proposi- 
tion,—" God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, 
in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, 
and truth." But remove the cross of Christ, from which 
alone the proof is derived, and we are again plunged into 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



61 



all the uncertainty of those speculations upon the being 
and attributes of God, the only effect of which has been to 
show, that unaided reason could never draw any satisfac- 
tory conclusion upon the subject, from the kingdoms either 
of nature or of providence, — that as the sun can be dis- 
covered only by his own light, so God can be known only 
by his own revelation. Make the cross of Christ the cross 
of a fallen sinful man, and the same effect is produced. If 
the death of such a man could teach us anything as to the 
being and attributes of God, then surely the instruction 
must be considered as more than sufficiently given, in the 
death of all generations of men. Yet who that ever spe- 
culated on the subject, ever drew from the fact, that fallen 
man is mortal, the most resistless proof, and the most glo- 
rious illustration, of the Divine perfections? Yet either 
tins fact does afford such proof and illustration, or the 
death of Christ, supposing him to have been fallen and sin- 
ful, affords it not. And if the death of Christ furnish not 
that proof and illustration, I repeat that we are yet des- 
titute of them ; and the gospel, much and justly as we are 
accustomed to boast of the information which it has com- 
municated to us, has left us where it found us, in a state 
of total uncertainty with regard to the fundamental article 
of religion. Take away the cross of Christ, or make it the 
cross of a fallen sinful man, and God is yet unrevealed ; 
we cannot even prove his existence, and still less can we 
speak with any degree of certainty as to his character. 

The instructions which our Saviour delivered orally to 
his disciples, comprise the very smallest portion of what 
he did as our Prophet. These instructions could easily 
have been delivered — as to us in point of fact they are de- 
livered — by inspired men. To deliver these instructions, 
therefore, could not be the object of his incarnation. 
Neither could his active obedience possibly manifest the 
whole of the Divine perfections, or the infinity of any of 
them, and, consequently, his active obedience could not 
form a complete revelation of God. His death was neces- 



62 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



sary for this purpose. But if his death was merely the 
death of a fallen and sinful, but regenerated man, then the 
most instructive, the most glorious and impressive display 
of the Divine perfections which the universe ever saw, or 
can ever see, dwindles into one of the most ordinary, 
every-day occurrences that the world presents to our 
notice. 

I do not hold myself bound so to confine myself to a 
controversial view of this subject, as to overlook its more 
striking and important practical bearings. I have already 
had occasion to show, that the death of our Prophet very 
distinctly teaches us, that such is the goodness of God, 
that there is no extent of guilt which he is not willing to 
pardon, and therefore that there is no sinner who may not 
venture to come to the throne of grace. I have also shown 
how the same event proves, that to hope for salvation, 
excepting through an union with Christ, is to hope that 
God will overturn the whole principles of his moral go- 
vernment, and render the whole scheme of redemption, 
and all that it cost Christ to accomplish it, a mere nullity ; 
and that, for the purpose of sparing the sinner the trouble 
of denying himself, and abandoning his sins. I would 
now further remark, that the death of our Prophet distinct- 
ly teaches us to what extent our obedience to God must 
be carried. His command is, that we should be ready to 
lay down our lives for the brethren, and should resist even 
unto blood, striving against sin. His own practice goes to 
the full extent of his precept. He obeyed even unto 
death. He has thus effectually cut off every excuse that 
can possibly be made for a limited obedience. Nothing is 
more common than for men to plead, in palliation of some 
palpable neglect of duty, or of perseverance in conduct 
which their own conscience condemns, the resistless 
strength of the temptation. They will admit that they 
are wrong, but then they plead, How can they help it ? 
How can they expose themselves to the ridicule of their 
companions, to the frown of those whose society consti- 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



63 



tutes their chief delight, to discredit in the world, to the 
displeasure of influential Mends, or to severe worldly 
losses, by a rigidly scrupulous attention to what the Bible 
and their own conscience declare to be thoir duty? Prin- 
ciple, no doubt, is a good thing ; but then unhappily that 
which is right is not always that which is expedient. 
[Now, if there ever existed a human being who could pro- 
duce a valid plea for limiting his obedience, and for mak- 
ing the right yield to the expedient, it was the man Christ 
Jesus. What an endless variety of apologies might he 
have made, for declining from the path of obedience, when 
it became the path of suffering ? He might have pleaded 
that as his obedience was voluntary, he ought not to be 
required to submit to aught that was painful ; that he suf- 
ficiently honoured the law, when he yielded obedience to 
its active precepts, without coming under its penal endur- 
ances. He might have pleaded that he was the Son, and 
had never offended, and therefore might well claim some 
indulgence. He might have alleged the great immediate 
happiness that would result from all men owning him as 
the Messiah, and contrasted it with the misery which must 
ensue on his being despised and rejected of men. If 
strength of temptation can sanction a limitation of our 
obedience, then never were temptations equal to those with 
which he was tried. And if the losses and sufferings that 
would follow a resolute discharge of duty, may be pleaded 
as a valid reason for neglecting it, then who had ever 
such a reason for neglecting it, as he who could so truly 
say, u Behold and see if any sorrow be like unto my sor- 
row ?" Never, however, did he seek to limit his obedience. 
Though the path assigned him by the will of the Father 
was a path of ceaseless and unexampled suffering, — was 
everywhere strewed with thorns, and wet with tears and 
blood, yet it was his meat and his drink to do the will 
of his Father. " Though he were a Son, yet he learned 
obedience by the things that he suffered." And if no re- 
laxation of the stern demands of the law was ever made in 



64 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



his favour, dare we suppose that any relaxation will be 
made in our favour ? Have we any apology as valid for 
declining the path of duty, even under the most trying 
possible circumstances, as he had ? And shall we be per- 
mitted to decline or draw back, where he was imperiously 
required to go forward, even though it were to a baptism 
of blood? No. "The disciple is not above his master, 
nor the servant above his lord. It is enough for the 
disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his 
lord." 

And the obedience of our Prophet, " even unto death," 
was essentially necessary to teach us this truth. Had his 
obedience been limited to something short of death, then 
we would have felt encouraged to set a limit, and that a 
much narrower limit, to our own obedience. But if even 
death, in its most fearful form, did not authorize the Son 
to decline from the path of obedience, then his every pang 
impresses upon our hearts the lesson, that when God com- 
mands, there is no plea, however plausible, that can pos- 
sibly be admitted as an excuse for neglecting to obey ; — 
that though obedience should lead us through a fiery fur- 
nace, or a lion's den, the example of him who obeyed 
through sufferings more fearful by far than either, infalli- 
bly assures us, that no argument can apologize for our 
turning back, when God calls us to go forward. Moreover, 
had his obedience fallen short of obedience unto death, it 
would have been impossible to say exactly how much had 
been required of him, and therefore how much could be re- 
quired of us. And timid martyrs would, when called up- 
on to suffer, have been tempted to yield to what the}' 
might have considered the necessity of the case ; and sa- 
crifice to idols under the plea, that they could not be 
called upon to perform an act of obedience, which had not 
been required of Christ himself. And vain-glorious mar- 
tyrs, — some such there were, — would have been encourag- 
ed, rashly and presumptuously, to offer themselves to the 
stake, urged on by the desire of yielding an obedience 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



65 



which Christ had never yielded, and of enduring sufferings 
with which even he was never tried. Wherefore in all 
things, — in obedience as well as other things, — it became 
him to have the pre-eminence ; so that when we feel 
tempted to set a limit to our obedience, we may learn from 
our Prophet, that there is no ground upon which such a 
limitation can be defended. When a man begins to in- 
quire, not how he may most effectually obey God, but 
within how narrow limits he may venture to contract his 
obedience ; when he begins to ask, not what is right, but 
what is expedient, let him look to the cross of Christ, and 
either renounce such principles, or renounce the name of 
Christian. 

Whether, then, we look to the communication of theolo- 
gical truth, or to the illustration and enforcement of prac- 
tical principle, it is plain that our instruction would have 
been altogether defective, had not our Prophet died. 
Even with his death before their eyes, men do grievously 
err, and call themselves Christians, when their conduct is 
such, that unless Christianity be a dream, their salvation 
is impossible. How much more would this have been the 
case had Christ not died at all ! If with his obedience even 
unto death before them, they can yet call themselves 
Christians, while carrying their obedience only as far as 
expediency warrants, how much more would they have 
done this, had his obedience been of a limited nature ! 

Again, it is to be recollected that Christ still continues 
to be the Prophet of the Church. " In him are hid all the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge," and we can derive 
that wisdom which maketh wise unto salvation from none 
other than from him. He still continues to teach us, " by 
his Word and Spirit, the will of God for our salvation." 
And no other can teach us. It is important for us to re- 
member this ; for we are very apt to overlook it, and to 
seek instruction from sources which have it not to give. If 
Christ still hold the office of Prophet, then it is impossible 
that any one can give us that "wisdom which cometh 



66 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



down from above," excepting him. For, if we could ac- 
quire that wisdom, or any portion of that wisdom, from any- 
other, then, so far, would that other be our Saviour, and 
Christ's office of Prophet be superseded. It may be said, 
perhaps, that it is from the Holy Spirit that we receive 
that wisdom, and that he is the great enlightener ; and it 
is truly said. It is the Holy Ghost alone who applies to 
us the benefits resulting from all the offices of Christ ; but 
then, in so doing, he is acting as the Spirit of Christ, 
and is given to us by him. While, therefore, he is the 
great and only enlightener, he is not our Prophet, but takes 
of the things that are Christ's, and shows them unto us. 
And that none save Christ, by his Spirit, can give us any 
heavenly wisdom, is abundantly proved, by the different 
effects produced by the same Gospel, announced in the 
same terms, to different men. In one, its threatenings 
against all ungodliness arouse the most lively concern, its 
promises awaken the most delightful hopes, and it becomes 
u the power of God unto salvation." By another, the same 
threatenings and promises are heard with the most pro- 
found indifference, and produce no effect whatever, save 
that of hardening him more and more, every time he so 
hears them, against their influence. Now, how is this fact, 
— a fact known to every man, — to be accounted for ? It 
cannot be accounted for by any difference in point of 
learning, or talent, or natural temperament, or by any ex- 
ternal circumstances. For men of all different kinds and 
degrees of learning, talent, temperament, and external cir- 
cumstances, are found both among believers and unbe- 
lievers. The fact can be accounted for only on this 
ground, that to the one, the truths declared have been ren- 
dered efficacious, by the great Prophet sending his Spirit 
to bring them home to his heart with demonstration and 
power ; while the other, forgetting his dependence upon 
this agency, seeks not for it by earnest prayer, and there- 
fore finds that to him the application of means, perhaps in 
themselves more powerful, are totally unavailing, — and 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET, 



67 



unavailing, possibly, because their apparent power has led 
him to depend upon them, without looking beyond them. 
Could any means, however powerful, savingly enlighten 
us, without the agency of the Holy Spirit given to us by 
Christ, then might we safely rest in the means alone, as 
we are always too prone to do. And if he who gives us 
the Holy Spirit be a fallen, sinful, and regenerated man, 
then I see no reason why we should not expect any other 
fallen, sinful, and regenerated man, in whom the Holy Spi- 
rit dwells, to impart to us the same gift, though perhaps in 
a smaller measure. To make our Prophet, then, a fallen, 
sinful, regenerated man, goes very directly to establish 
more than one of the most fatal errors with which the 
Church of Rome has ever been charged. 

If Christ be our Prophet, therefore, it becomes us to at- 
tend to the instructions which he hath given with the most 
reverential regard. No man professing Christianity will 
venture to say, in so many words, that the Eternal Word 
was made flesh, and endured so much, in order to give to us 
a revelation, with which it is a matter of little or no con- 
sequence whether we be acquainted or not. No such man 
will even venture to say, that there can be any thing of 
greater importance than to make ourselves acquainted with 
that which he held to be so important. Yet, if we actually 
neglect to study the work of redemption, and prefer a 
thousand things to the acquisition of that wisdom which is 
from above, we are guilty of saying this, and of saying it 
in a manner much stronger than words can express it. 
And to plead that we never gave utterance to this blas- 
phemy, in so many words, is no extenuation, but, on the 
contrary, a grievous aggravation of our guilt. For if that 
man be culpable who maintains and acts upon an errone- 
ous principle, how much more culpable is he who acts up- 
on a principle so utterly and indefensibly bad, that he not 
only dares not maintain it, but would shudder even to utter 
it! Yet how many there are, even among professing 
Christians, who practically say unto God, ''Depart from 



68 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



us, for we desire not the knowledge of thy ways," no man 
needs to be told. That any hmnan being should have been 
found, even among our fallen race, capable of treating, as 
a matter hardly worthy of attention, that which, when 
no created being was found capable of revealing, the 
only begotten Son himself humbled himself so low, in 
order to reveal ; and capable of looking with the most 
hardened indifference upon that affecting and impressive 
display of the Divine perfections, exhibited in the cross of 
Christ, could not have been anticipated — could not have 
been believed, till it was actually proved by the experiment 
being made. There are men eager in the pursuit of know- 
ledge, and who suffer nothing to escape their examination, 
from behemoth to the worm, — from the cedar that is in 
Lebanon to the hyssop that groweth out of the wall, — 
from the combinations of the planets to the transforma- 
tions of an insect, but from whose range of study the 
Maker of all things is most carefully excluded, and from 
whose heart God is most resolutely shut out. Perhaps 
there exists not a more deplorable proof of the fatal nature 
of the fall of man, nor can Satan point to any more signal 
proof of the power of his delusions, nor can angels, in their 
visits to this earth, meet with a more lamentable and in- 
structive spectacle than such a man, — a man enriched 
with all the acquisitions, and adorned with all the honours 
of science, and yet whose mind is totally impervious to the 
simple reflection, that if those works which he delights to 
investigate be wonderful, 

" How passing wonder He who made them suchj" 

No position, it appears to me, can well be more simple or 
less liable to dispute than this, that if the material system 
of the universe be glorious, and a knowledge of all its de- 
partments important, — much more glorious and important 
to be known in all its parts must be that moral system, 
for the sake of which alone the material fabric was reared ; 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



69 



a system throughout which the u Sua of Eighteousness," 
as its centre, diffuses the light of heavenly wisdom, and 
the riches of heavenly joy. And with whatever pity or 
compassion the philosopher may feel himself entitled to 
look down upon the untutored peasant, 

" Whose, soul proud science never taught to stray, 
Far as the solar walk, or milky way," 

and for whom suns arise only to light him to his toils, and 
set only to leave hiin to recruit his exhausted strength ; 
with much greater pity and compassion is that peasant, if 
he has been taught in the school of Christ, entitled to look 
down on the proudest name that ever science owned, if 
separated from the knowledge of God in Christ Jesus. A 
knowledge of the works of God, our own unaided efforts 
are able to attain ; a knowledge of God himself, none but 
God manifest in the flesh could reveal. And he surely is 
a woeful monument of the utter perversion of the human 
mind who prefers the former of these species of knowledge 
to the latter; and imagines that he ennobles himself 
by extending our knowledge of the things that God 
has made, while he perhaps sneers at the man who, by 
studying the work of redemption, is seeking to extend our 
knowledge of God himself. If Christ be our Prophet, 
it is no longer a question whether the information which 
he came to give be more important than any information 
which we could acquire without his advent. He has given 
to us the revelation of God, and if we neglect it, or prefer 
any other knowledge to it , we do so at our peril. The gospel 
is not one of the things, which, if it do us no good, will do 
us no harm. We must all account to Christ for the use 
which we have made of the knowledge given ; and to each 
of us it will be the savour of life, or the savour of death. 
It will save us from our sins, or it will leave us without 
excuse. I therefore repeat, that if Christ be our Prophet, 
we are bound by the most sacred ties, and under the most 



70 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



fearful sanctions, to attend to his instructions with the 
most reverential regard ; for surely it will not be said that 
he can be safe who treats as a trifle that which God be- 
came incarnate to reveal. 

If Christ be our Prophet, we are also bound to receive 
his instructions with all the docility of a little child, with- 
out pretending to sit in judgment upon the truth or pro- 
priety of these instructions. The limits of the province 
that belongs to reason in religion it cannot be difficult to 
assign. It is the duty of reason to ascertain, whether 
that which professes to be a divine revelation really be so 
or not. And supposing this to be determined in the affir- 
mative, it is then the office of reason to ascertain what it 
is that that revelation teaches, — what is the plain, simple, 
unsophisticated meaning of the language which it addresses 
to us. But beyond this reason may not go. Nothing can 
be more preposterous than to admit a revelation to be from 
God, and yet imagine that we have a right to reject, or 
alter, or in any way modify, what that revelation teaches. 
It is no apology for this absurdly to say, that it contains 
things mysterious, and most directly opposed to some of 
our most deeply cherished views, and feelings, and preju- 
dices. A revelation, to do us good, must contain such 
things. It is not given that it may be modified into an 
agreement with our views and prejudices, for it could in 
this case be of no use to us whatever, but that all our views, 
and feelings, and principles, may by it be corrected, and 
brought into conformity with the truth. We have no 
right whatever to select what portions of it we will receive, 
for it must be unreservedly received as a whole, with the 
most perfect submission of the mind to all its dictates, else 
it is wholly rejected. He who receives only so much as ap- 
pears to him to be credible, plainly does not receive any 
portion of the Word of God ; for what he does believe, he 
believes, not because God has said it, but because he can 
prove it, whether God had said it or not. His faith there- 
fore stands, not at all upon the Word of God, but wholly 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



71 



upon his own wisdom, and the authority of God is entire- 
ly rejected. That there should be such men is not won- 
derful; but it is wonderful that they should call them- 
selves believers in a divine revelation. " Speak, Lord, for 
thy servant heareth," is the attitude in which it becomes 
us to listen to the instructions of our Prophet, even when 
these instructions come to lay an unsparing hand upon all 
our pleasant things, — to root out our most deeply-fixed pre- 
dices, — to repress our most cherished inclinations, — and 
to bind us down to a course of self-denial and mortification, 
most painful to flesh and blood. We have no more right, 
and no more power, to improve the Word of God, than we 
have to improve the works of God. " This is my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him," is a com- 
mand to which there is no limitation, and from which there 
is no exception. 

To increase in divine knowledge is also a duty which we 
owe to our Prophet. While there is in his revelation of 
God a depth which the profoundest of human minds can 
never fathom, an extent which the most capacious of hu- 
man understandings can never fully comprehend, and from 
which the hosts of heaven gather ever new accessions to 
their knowledge ; there is also a simplicity by which even 
little children may be nourished up unto everlasting life : 
and the Holy Spirit, by whose agency our Prophet teaches 
us, can render the Holy Scriptures, the means by which he 
teaches us, as efficacious to them as to those of riper years. 
But while the Christian will feel that he has indeed enjoy- 
ed a rich privilege, if he has from a child known the Holy 
Scriptures, he will also feel, that when he becomes a man, 
it will be proper that he should put away childish things, 
and grow in the knowledge of God. Not a few, who call 
themselves -Christians, seem to consider, not how they may 
most effectually increase their knowledge of God, but with 
how little knowledge of him they may be safe. But if to 
know God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent, be life 
eternal, then the Christian will feel that it is not so much 



72 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



his duty as his privilege, to be continually growing in that 
knowledge. The desire which he feels after this know- 
ledge cries unceasingly, " Give, give and -every acquisi- 
tion which he makes, only stimulates his desires after 
further acquisitions, and increases his power to make them. 
When God shall appear, we shall be like him, because we 
shall then see him as he is. And the more that we can see 
of him here, the more like to him we shall be in holiness and 
in happiness. The man who thinks that he has acquired as 
much knowledge of God as is necessary, is proving that as 
yet he knows not God at all. 

Another duty which we owe to our Prophet, is to carry 
out his instructions into ^practice. To make us holy is the 
effect intended to be produced by all that Christ has done 
for us. u He died that he might redeem us from all our 
iniquities, and might purify us to himself a peculiar people, 
zealous of good works." And if this effect be not produ- 
ced, it signifies nothing how correct our creed, or how loud 
our professions may be ; we are yet " in the gall of bit- 
terness, and in the bond of iniquity." " Why call ye me 
Lord, Lord, if ye do not the things which I say?" saith 
Jesus ; and elsewhere he states the necessity of carrying 
his instructions out into practice, in the following impres- 
sive language — " Whosoever therefore heareth these words 
of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man, 
who built his house upon a rock : And the storm de- 
scended, and rivers came, and the winds blew, and beat 
upon that house ; and it fell not, for it was founded upon a 
rock. And whosoever heareth these my words, and doeth 
them not, shall be likened to a foolish man, who built his 
house upon the sand : And the storm descended, and the 
rivers came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that 
house; and it fell, and its fall was great." 1 If they do 
grievously err who hope to be saved by their obedience, 
thus instead of making holiness the very substance of sal- 



1 Matt. vii. 24. 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



7S 



vation, and its attainment the very highest object of human 
hope, sinking it into the rank of something desirable, not 
on its own account, but as a means for obtaining something 
of greater value ; they do not less grievously err who 
imagine that because the righteousness of Christ is the sole 
ground of our salvation, therefore, their own holiness is a 
matter of little or no consequence. For to hope that we 
may be saved, without being made holy, is a direct contra- 
diction in terms. It is to hope, in other words, that we 
may be saved, without being saved. It ought not to be 
forgotten, that holiness is not, and cannot be, the means of 
salvation, for this plain reason, that it is salvation itself. If, 
therefore, we should be able to say to Christ, " Lord, Lord, 
have we not prophesied in thy name, and in thy name cast 
out devils, and in thy name done many wonderful works ?" 
All this will avail us nothing, if we be u workers of iniquity." 

If Christ be our Prophet, then we are bound to com- 
municate to others that knowledge of God that he has 
taught to us. To this we are urged by every doctrine 
which the gospel inculcates, and by every principle which 
it implants in our hearts. If we love God, we will desire 
to make his glory known. If we love men, we will be 
anxious to promote their best interests. And if we love- 
not God and men, or if our love to them be too feeble to 
urge us on to make any active exertions, or submit to any 
sacrifices, I need not stop to prove that we have yet to 
learn what Christianity is. If Christ submitted to all the 
humiliation, and endured all the sufferings recorded in the 
gospel, in order to manifest the glory of God, and to save 
the souls of men ; can we call ourselves his disciples, and 
say that we have drank of his Spirit, if amongst us, and 
around us, and throughout the world, we can see the glory 
of God given to a thousand idols, and the souls of men 
perishing, without feeling ourselves urged to every exertion 
that may be within our power, in order to terminate a 
state which no Christian can contemplate without the most 
painful feelings ? No, the Christian is essentially a mission- 



74 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



ary, and every Christian Church is essentially a Missionary 
Society. The believer, in learning the value of his own 
soul, has learned how to estimate the souk of other men ; 
and the same Spirit that imparted to him a knowledge of 
the truth as it is in Christ Jesus, and taught him to feel 
all its importance, imparted to him, at the same time, the 
desire to communicate it to others. Every man who calls 
himself a Christian professes to be a living monument of 
the glory of God ; and according as his conduct is, or is 
not, consistent with this profession, will it be an encourage- 
ment to, or a stumbling-block in the way of, others embrac- 
ing the gospel. His character must exercise a beneficial 
or a malignant influence upon all who are connected with 
him ; and either his light will so shine before men, as to 
lead others to glorify our Father who is in heaven, or his 
conduct will lead to the conclusion that the adoption of 
the gospel is calculated only to add hypocrisy to guilt, 
and thus cause " the way of truth to be evil spoken of." 

The believer therefore feels, that, independent of his own 
personal obligations to hold the truth in righteousness, 
there rests upon him an awful responsibility with regard 
to the effect which his conduct may have upon other men. 
In these days especially will every Christian weigh well 
the import of the declaration, " He that is not for me is 
against me ; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth 
abroad." In primitive times, the holy lives of Christians 
was one of the principal means of giving to the gospel such 
astonishing success ; and were every man, who calls him- 
self a Christian now, to prove himself by his conduct to be 
a Christian in reality, there can be no doubt that Chris- 
tianity would rapidly spread throughout the world. It is 
a melancholy reflection, that while the progress of Chris- 
tianity has been so slow, that progress has never been re- 
tarded by all the efforts of its declared opponents. A 
man, in order effectually to injure Christianity, must 
profess himself a Christian ; and I cannot think that it is 
overstating the matter to say, that every man who calls 



CHRIST OUR PROPHET. 



75 



himself a Christian, without in reality being so, inflicts a 
more essential injury upon Christianity, and does more 
to retard its progress in the world, than any one declared 
opponent that ever existed. 

Upon the whole, then, it appears that the death of 
Christ, and consequently his Incarnation, was essentially 
necessary to the discharge of the duties of his Prophetic 
office. Without dying he could not have given us that 
manifestation of the Divine character, — that knowledge of 
the perfections of God, without which we can never have 
our hearts "right with God." And it no less plainly 
appears, that to make him a fallen sinful man, is to sweep 
away the very ground of all the knowledge which he im- 
parted, and to extinguish the light of his Kevelation, by 
covering it with a cloud of impenetrable darkness. If he 
had no sin, either original or actual, then he was not 
fallen and sinful, and we draw from his life, and especially 
from his death, a knowledge of God which we can never 
exhaust. If he had either original or actual sin, then 
indeed he was fallen and sinful ; and in this case we can 
learn no more from his death, than we can learn from that 
of any other man. 

I may remark, also, that every argument which has been 
used to disprove the tenet that Christ was a fallen and 
sinful man, applies with equal force to prove that he was 
not a mere man. 



CHAPTER III. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



I now proceed to consider the Priesthood of otir Saviour. 
This also will lead us to see the necessity of his death, and 
consequently of his Incarnation ; and, at the same time, 
will carry us very directly and irresistibly to the conclu- 
sion that, in becoming man, he did not become a fallen 
sinful man. That he actually was a Priest, I hold to be 
sufficiently proved by the fact, that he is called so in 
Scripture. It is no doubt argued that he is called so only 
figuratively, as all Christians are called priests, and with 
a reference to the priests under the Levitical dispensation. 
To this I reply, that a figure must be drawn from a real- 
ity ; and if he was only figuratively a priest, then where 
is the man who was really one ? It will not avail to say, 
that under the law there were real priests, from whom the 
name was improperly applied to him. For if he was no 
Priest, then unquestionably they were none ; unless it be 
maintained that they did what he could not do ; and that 
the Jewish dispensation, instead of being only the shadow 
of good things to come, was in fact the reality of which 
Christianity is only the shadow ; a position which I 
suppose few will be hardy enough to maintain. If then 
the great " High Priest of our profession" was only figur- 
atively a Priest, assuredly those priests who only exercised 
the delegated powers which they received from him could 



CHRIST OUR TRIEST. 



77 



be no more ; and consequently there never was a real priest 
in existence. The very word, upon this supposition, stands 
in the unprecedented situation of having a figurative appli- 
cation, without having ever had a real literal meaning. But 
it will be said that the priests under the law were really 
priests. This I most readily admit ; and I admit, too, that 
the sacrifices which they offered were perfectly efficacious 
for the purposes for which they were appointed. They ex- 
empted the offender from temporal punishment, and restor- 
ed him to his place in society, and to his situation in the 
congregation of the Lord. But they could do no more. 
The blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin. 
But if the priests under the law were real priests, and their 
sacrifices possessed a real efficacy, to however limited an 
extent, then we seem to be shut up to one of these conclu- 
sions, — either that the sacrifices were efficacious by reason 
of their own intrinsic value, — or that they were so by reason 
of the power and favour which the offering priest enjoyed 
with God, — or, finally, that they derived their efficacy 
solely from their reference to, and connection with, the 
sacrifice offered by a priest of a higher order. The first of 
these conclusions will hardly be espoused, even by the 
hardiest rationalist. If the second be adopted, then it is 
admitted, that under the law there was an atonement to a 
certain extent ; and that there was a priest wiio, through 
the medium of gifts and sacrifices, offered for sins, had ac- 
cess to God, and a ground upon which to found an accept- 
able and a prevalent intercession, in behalf of the sinner ; 
advantages of which, under the Christian dispensation, we 
are totally deprived. And if Christ, instead of giving us 
the substance, of which the law only exhibited the shadow, 
has, in fact, reduced to a figure that atonement, and that 
priesthood, which under the law had an actual and efficient 
reality, then the Apostle had little ground for his boasting 
of the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over that of 
Aaron. We come, then, to the conclusion, that Christ 
was a real Priest, and the Priest from whom all other 



78 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



priests derived their power ; and through whom alone their 
sacrifices possessed any efficacy. 

The duties which Christ discharges as our Priest are, to 
make atonement for us, and to intercede for us • or, to adopt 
better language than any that I can frame, u Christ exe- 
cuteth the office of a Priest, in his once offering up of him- 
self a sacrifice to satisfy Divine justice, and reconcile us to 
God; and in his making continual intercession for us." 
Xow, these duties he discharged from the beginning, for 
from the beginning he forgave sin. This, however, he 
could not do excepting as a Priest. He was the u Lamb 
slain from the foundation of the world. 7 ' His Incarnation 
and death were so absolutely certain, that men were par- 
doned in consequence of his atonement, long before that 
atonement was actually made ; so that his failure in his 
work was an impossibility, unless it were possible that the 
counsel of God could fail, and that, through a defect of 
prescience, he had admitted into heaven the " righteous 
Abel," and others whom it might be necessary afterwards 
to cast out. 

The necessity of an atonement, — the absolute impossi- 
bility of pardoning the sinner without it, has, I conceive, 
been already abundantly manifested. If sin indeed be 
considered merely as a debt, then the necessity of an 
atonement cannot be proved ; for there can be no impro- 
priety in a rich creditor forgiving a poor debtor, without 
the interposition of any surety. That our sins are debts 
is perfectly true ; but many and mischievous are the errors 
into which men have been led, by considering them merely 
as debts ; and one of the worst of these errors is, that if 
sin be merely a debt, then is an atonement altogether un- 
necessary. But if God be considered as the Supreme 
"Ruler of the Universe, appointing what is necessary for 
the welfare of all his creatures, — and if he be a wise Ruler 
who does not make a world which has no connection with, 
nor effect upon, the whole, but makes every world with 
reference to all other worlds ; in other words, if no part of 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



70 



the universe be useless or superfluous ; and if our sins be 
considered as infractions of that law, of the inviolable 
sanctity of which it is necessary that every creature should 
be clearly convinced, and as practical denials of those di- 
vine perfections, of the absolute infinity and immutability 
of which it is necessary that every creature should be well 
assured ; then they assume a very different aspect. In 
this case we see clearly that were God to forgive them 
without atonement, he would in truth, by so doing, abro- 
gate the law, of which they are infractions, and acquiesce 
in that denial of his own perfections which they imply. 
Let the death of Christ as a Priest be denied ; let it be 
admitted that it was the death of only a fallen sinful man, 
dying for the same reason that other men die, and for what 
possible purpose, unless a most disastrous purpose, such a 
world as this was created, I cannot even venture to con- 
jecture. But view our sins as a rebellion against the Su- 
preme Ruler, and the death of Christ as the death of our 
great High Priest, atoning for these sins ; and we see at 
once the high and important situation which man occupies 
in the government of God ; while the atonement, through 
which his salvation is effected, exhibits to the hosts of 
heaven a view of the sanctity of the law, and of the glory 
of the divine perfections, which, as no language could ex- 
hibit, so no language can describe. 

This view of the matter, however, has been sufficiently 
discussed, and it has been shown that God could not have 
pardoned sin without atonement, without producing con- 
sequences the most disastrous to the whole universe. I 
shall now endeavour, therefore, through a somewhat dif- 
ferent train of reflection, to lead the reader to the same 
conclusion, and to prove that the death of Christ was 
really an atoning sacrifice. It will, I think, be admitted, 
as a maxim of indisputable truth, that pain inflicted when 
there is no necessity for it, or inflicted to an extent beyond 
what the necessity of the case demands, is a violation of 
justice. And it will be admitted that God cannot by any 



80 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



possibility violate justice. Whenever, therefore, God does 
inflict pain, it will be admitted that that pain, and the 
whole extent of it, was required by the necessity of the 
case ; and, consequently, that the remission of any part of 
it would be unjust. But God did inflict pain upon Christ, 
— nay, " it pleased the Lord to bruise him, and put him to 
grief." ISTow, either that pain, and every part of it, was 
imperiously required by justice, or it was not. If it was 
not, — if our salvation, the object of Christ's coming, could 
have been accomplished without it, then God, in the inflic- 
tion of this pain, was clearly violating justice, — a violation 
of which they surely will not believe him to have been 
guilty, who seem to consider God as merely a name for 
some unintelligible personification of mercy. It is of no use 
to say that God might justly inflict a degree of pain which 
Christ was willing to bear, in order to promote our salva- 
tion. For we are arguing on the supposition, that our sal- 
vation possibly could have been effected by him without 
these sufferings. And it is not easy to see how our salva- 
tion could be effected by his sufferings, if they were unne- 
cessary, and, therefore, unjust, because carried beyond 
what the necessity of the case demanded. It must be con- 
cluded, then, that the sufferings of Christ, in all their ex- 
tent, were imperiously demanded by justice. 

We must next inquire, then, upon what ground Justice 
founded this demand. That his sufferings were of the 
most agonizing kind cannot be denied. Extenuate them 
as you will ; call them the sufferings of a mere man, still 
in the union of bodily pain with mental anguish, they 
stand unequalled in the history of human endurance. 
Now, why were sufferings of this exquisite kind necessary ? 
Say that he was bearing our iniquities in his own body on 
the accursed tree, — that he was sustaining the curse due 
to us for our violations of the law, and the reply appears 
to be perfectly satisfactory, because it appears to assign a 
perfectly sufficient ground for these sufferings. Assign 
1 any of the inferior grounds which have been alleged as 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



81 



the cause of his sufferings, and see whether they arc 
equally satisfactory, or whether they will render these 
sufferings at all compatible with Justice. It is said that 
he died to confirm the truth of his doctrines. Granted ; 
but was his death absolutely necessary for this purpose ? 
Would his doctrines not have been believed had he not 
died to confirm them ? Had he constructed them with so 
little intrinsic rationality, and supported them by so little 
external evidence, that his death was necessary, imperi- 
ously and essentially necessary, to their reception? Or, 
if his death was necessary, were all the agonizing circum- 
stances that attended it necessary too? Unless this be 
alnrmed, unless it be maintained that had one pang that 
was inflicted upon him been spared, his doctrines could not 
have been believed, then it must be admitted that to say 
he died merely to confirm his doctrines, does by no means 
render his sufferings even compatible with Justice ; much 
less does it give a satisfactory account of them. But that 
he died in confirmation of his doctrines at all, is an allega- 
tion that we surely could little expect to hear from men 
who require very different evidence indeed, than either 
his life or his death affords, before they will receive any 
doctrine that he has taught, — who will believe nothing, 
unless they imagine that they can prove it, whether Christ 
ever taught it or not. Moreover, if there be any one doc- 
trine which, beyond all others, his death was designed to 
confirm, it is this, that he was equal with God ; for it was 
for the alleged blasphemy of this, that he was condemned 
as worthy of death by the rulers of the Jews. Yet this is 
the very doctrine, which they who tell us that his death 
was intended to confirm his doctrine, make it the funda- 
mental point of their system to deny. We may surely 
say to them, if he died to confirm his doctrine, why do 
you not believe his doctrine ? We expect more consist- 
ency in rational men. Either admit, then, that his death 
was more than a confirmation of his doctrine, or admit 
that his sufferings were a plain violation of Justice, since 

d 2 



H2 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



you receive no doctrine which yon would not have re- 
ceived, whether he had " suffered or not. 

But further, the death of Christ could not by any possi- 
bility prove his doctrines to be true, if they were previously 
doubtful. It could only prove his own sincerity ; and if 
this was doubtful before, it is uncertain whether it could 
have been very satisfactorily established by that event, 
under the particular circumstances of the case. But with- 
out dwelling upon this, I would observe, that to prove a 
doctrine to be true, and to make it true, are two very dif- 
ferent things. Now, the death of Christ did not merely 
prove his doctrines to be true, but it made them true. 
For example, he declared that his death was necessary in 
order to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, — " It is ex- 
pedient for you that I go away ; for if I go not away, the 
Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, I will 
send him unto you." Now, if Christ could actually have 
given the Holy Spirit without dying, this doctrine is false. 1 
The same remark may, in one form or another, be ap- 
plied to every doctrine of the Gospel. They depend not 
for their confirmation, but for their truth, on the death of 
Christ. Take that away, and Christianity at once 
dwindles down to simple Deism. Again, therefore, I re- 
mark, that to say that Christ died to confirm the doctrines 
of simple Deism, is just to say, that suffering was inflicted 
upon him, in order to prove the truth of doctrines which 
the Deist pretends that he can prove very well, though 
Christ had never either lived or died. In this case, then, 
assuredly his sufferings were not at all required by the 
necessity of the case, and were consequently inflicted in 
palpable violation of justice. 

Again, it is said that he died to give us an example of 
patience in suffering. This also is most fully granted ; 
but the question is, was his death imperiously necessary 
for this purpose ? Could we not possibly have acquired for 



1 Ses note D. Appendix. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



83 



ourselves, or could God not possibly have wrought in us, 
the spirit of fortitude and patience, had the sufferings of 
Christ been less severe ? The objector to the atonement 
cannot, on his own principles, pretend to say this. He 
must then admit, either that the sufferings of Christ had 
a higher object, or that they were unjustly inflicted. 
^Neither this purpose, then, nor the proving of his doc- 
trines, could render his death a matter of imperious 
necessity, nor consequently a matter of justice. 

Another purpose which, it is said, was answered by his 
death was, that by rising again he might give to us the 
most perfect assurance of the resurrection. }vTow, it is most 
readily admitted, that the accomplishment of this purpose 
rendered his death imperiously necessary. But then the 
easiest and most honourable death would have accom- 
plished this purpose just as well as the most ignominious, 
and the most agonizing. The agony in the garden and on 
the cross, and all the bitterness of death, were totally un- 
called for by this object, and were therefore inflicted to 
the violation of justice, as they were inflicted without 
being at all required by the necessity of the case. 

Are there any other purposes supposed to be accom- 
plished by the sufferings and death of Christ? It is use- 
less to inquire. Be these purposes what they may, if they 
fall short of an atonement for sin, I may venture to say 
that it will be found impossible, on any ground which these 
purposes can afford, to reconcile his sufferings and death 
with the plainest dictates of unalterable justice. Justice 
then did imperiously demand an atonement, for it de- 
manded the sufferings and death of Christ ; and upon no 
inferior ground can the justice of the demand be vindi- 
cated. 

But in maintaining the doctrine of atonement, we are in 
the habit of using language much more displeasiug to those 
who deny it, than when we say that an atonement was 
required by the justice of God. For we are very apt to 
talk of the wrath of God against sin : and while the Scrip- ' 
tures tell us that God is angry with the wicked every day, 



84 



CHRIST OUK PRIEST. 



nay, that his soul abhorreth the wicked ; and while they 
describe his wrath in terms of the most terrific import, we 
hold it to be the very reverse of modesty to comply with 
the enervated delicacy of modern theology, and reject 
such expressions as harsh and inappropriate. For it is 
quite clear that sin must be the object of supreme hatred 
to God, since it not only tramples upon his authority, but 
denies his very existence, and would, were it permitted to 
produce its full effect, involve the whole universe in un- 
distinguished ruin. It is perfectly true that wrath is not 
in God, as it is in us, an agitating, disturbing passion, 
excited by some strong impulse, and following out its 
career with blind ungovernable fury. God is totally un- 
susceptible of any passion ; but we can speak of him only 
in human language, and we ascribe to him wrath, much 
in the same way that we ascribe to him hands and feet. 
But then there is something in God analogous to wrath 
in us ; and that it is not in him an agitating passion, ren- 
ders it just so much the more di'eadful. Passion would 
abate, its fervour would cool; and the same weakness 
that gave it birth would ensure its termination. But 
wrath in God is not an emotion, and therefore can no 
more change than any other part of the Divine character 
can change. And while the Scriptures call this particular 
manifestation of holiness and justice — for it is nothing else 
— by the names of wrath, and abhorrence, and indigna- 
tion, we need not scruple to call it by the same names ; 
since it will infallibly produce all the same effects that 
these passions tend to produce among men, and that in 
a manner infinitely more terrible to the objects of it. 

Xow, the question is, how are we to escape this wrath ? 
As it is not a passion, it does not render God unwilling to 
forgive ; but, derived from the purity of his holiness, and 
the inflexibility of his justice, it plainly renders forgiveness 
impossible, unless that forgiveness can be rendered per- 
fectly compatible with these perfections, — with the sanc- 
tity of the law, and the safety of the universe. God can- 
not deny himself, nor act in a way contrary to his own 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



85 



perfections. Now, an atonement, which shows the hatef ill- 
ness of sin more impressively than either our obedience or 
our destruction could do ; and displays all the perfections 
of God, in a way in which they never otherwise could have 
been displayed, does render it not only a just but a glori- 
ous thing for God to forgive the sinner. Pardon commu- 
nicated through this medium, shows God to be just, while 
he is 44 the justifier of him which belie veth in Jesus." 
u He washed us from our sins in his blood;" but if his 
blood was shed merely as a testimony to the truth of his 
doctrines, or as an example of suffering patience, or as a 
preparatory step to the resurrection, this cannot be true ; 
we are as yet unwashed, and the wrath of God abidetli 
upon us still. But that wrath Jesus in very truth did feel 
to the uttermost, when he cried out, 44 1 am poured out 
like water, and all my bones are out of joint : my heart is 
like wax ; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My 
strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue 
cleaveth to my jaws ; and thou hast brought me into the 
dust of death." 1 Sin, strictly speaking, is never pardon- 
ed. The sins of unbelievers are not pardoned ; for they 
are driven away in their iniquities. The sins of the be- 
liever are transferred to Christ. He took them upon him, 
and while they are fully and freely pardoned to the be- 
liever, they were not pardoned to his substitute. The 
penalty of them was exacted of him who was able to en- 
dure it without sinking under it. And when he had en- 
dured that penalty, it not only becomes a just thing to re- 
mit it to the believer, but it would be unjust to inflict up- 
on him personally that which he has already endured in 
his surety. I hold it, therefore, to be language most Scrip- 
tural and true, to say, that we can escape the wrath of 
God only through the sufferings of Christ, who was made 
a curse for us. Hence the Church is called a 44 purchased 
possession," we are expressly declared to be 44 bought with 
a price," and the price is stated to be 44 the precious blood 
of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot." 

1 Psalm xxii. 14, 15. 



CHRIST OUK PI1IEST. 



3sTay, so completely was the notion of purchase, in early 
times, associated with atonement, that the very word 
D^/bl came to signify a price. 1 

Now, if any person choose to say that this represents 
God as implacable, — as determined to have punishment, 
and an infinite amount of it, which Christ endures for so 
many, while the divine wrath still continues unabated to- 
ward all others, — that it represents the Father and Son as 
actuated by different, and even opposite feelings toward the 
sinner, I can only reply, that I am totally at a loss to dis- 
cover upon what part of the statement the objection can 
be founded. If we look to the sufferings of Christ, I say 
that the infliction of these sufferings can be reconciled with 
justice, on no other ground than the supposition that they 
formed an atonement for our sins ; for on no other ground, 
that has ever yet been alleged, were they imperiously re- 
quired by the necessity of the case. And taking a higher 
view of. the matter, I say that had God, as Supreme Ruler 
of the Universe, after he had declared that death was the 
wages of sin, forgiven sin without any atonement, — with- 
out actually inflicting the penalty, then the plainest dic- 
tates of justice had been violated, and the very foundations 
of his moral government subverted. That the Father was 
less deeply interested in the salvation of sinners than the 
Son, or that the Son is less unalterably repugnant to the 
salvation of sinners, excepting through the medium of 
atonement, than the Father, — that the love of the one is, 
or at any time ever was, greater than that of the other, is 
most distinctly and unequivocally denied. ISTor am I 
aware that from any part of the preceding statement a dif- 
ference of affection toward fallen man, in the different per- 
sons of the Trinity, can be drawn. I have already shown 
why neither the Father nor the Holy Ghost could become 
incarnate. But if I have said any thing from which it may 
be fairly inferred, either that they were less deeply inter- 
ested in the success of the atonement, or that the Son 
would have been more ready to forgive the sinner without 

1 See note E. Appendix. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



87 



it, in so far I am not only willing to admit, but anxious to 
announce, that I must have mis-stated the doctrine of 
Scripture upon the subject. 

But the mercy of God, it is thought, would have been 
much more highly honoured, and more conspicuously dis- 
played, had that mercy been at once applied to the sinner, 
without any atonement being required. God, it is said, 
cannot be considered as exercising mercy at all, in the par- 
don of the sinner, when he does not grant the pardon with- 
out first inflicting the penalty upon the sinner's Surety. 
Now, if one attribute of the Divine character can be con- 
sidered, as more imperiously demanding atonement than 
any other, mercy is assuredly that attribute ; for I appre- 
hend that without the atonement, the very existence of 
such an attribute as Mercy in the Divine character is in- 
capable of any satisfactory proof. We want to know that 
God is merciful, — that he is infinite in mercy, — that there 
is no case of guilt to which his mercy will not extend. 
And how are we to learn this ? Should God forgive some 
sinners, and condemn others ? this would prove that his 
mercy was limited. And as every sinner, when made ac- 
quainted with the plague of his own heart, very naturally 
thinks himself to be the chief of sinners, every sinner 
would in this case, when he felt his need of mercy, feel also 
that he was placed beyond that limit to which mercy ex- 
tends. Even the death of Christ does not always prevent 
him from thinking this. But let us suppose that God 
should pardon every sinner, without requiring any atone- 
ment, would this prove him to be merciful ? No, this ab- 
rogation of the law, this encouragement to sin, this utter 
subversion of his moral government, would be the very re- 
verse of an act of mercy. And, moreover, should God 
pardon all sin, the inference would be, not that God is 
merciful, but that sin is no evil. Even the atonement does 
not prevent the sinner from thinking that God is like him- 
self, and does not hate sin. If sin were pardoned without 
any atonement, this would be an undeniable truth. Now, 



88 



CHHIST OUR PKIEST. 



we know that God is merciful, not simply because lie par- 
dons sin, but because he pardons it after he has awfully 
demonstrated how infinitely and unalterably hateful it is 
to him ; and because he gave up his Son to death in order 
to render pardon possible. This was an act of mercy so 
great, that none other can ever surpass, or even equal it. 
44 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." 
And we hold the Apostle's reasoning to be irresistible, 
44 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up 
for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all 
things ?" This is an argument with which we can go to the 
mourning sinner, whose soul is troubled, while conscience 
is setting all his sins in array before him, and who is ready 
to say, 44 There is no hope and we can tell him that God 
is perfectly willing to bestow upon him all the glory and 
blessedness of heaven. And we can show him that he has 
no reason whatever to doubt this ; for when God brings 
him into that city of which such glorious things are spoken, 
and crowns him with glory, honour, and immortality, he 
is in all this giving him a much smaller expression of 
love than that which he has already given, in giving up his 
Son to death for sinners. Here is an act of mercy so much 
greater than any other that ever can be displayed, that we 
need not wonder that unbelief, — that doubts as to whether 
God really loveth us, and be willing to fulfil to us every 
promise that he has made, should be set forth in Scripture 
as the worst of sins. After such an expression of his love, 
after such a manifestation of mercy as the cross of Christ 
affords, — the very highest that heaven could furnish, — 
can any thing so deeply mark the depravity of the human 
heart, or offer such an insult to God, as still resolutely to 
doubt whether he be willing to 44 forgive us our sins, and 
to cleanse us from all our iniquities ?" # 

But, let it be supposed that the death of Christ was not 
strictly and properly an atonement, demanded by the jus- 
tice of God, and necessary to avert from us the curse of 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



89 



a broken law, and we are not only effectually deprived of 
this, the only sufficient argument by which we can combat 
the sinner's fears, the only satisfactory ground upon which 
we can call upon the sinner to trust in God, but it becomes 
altogether impossible to prove that there is any such attri- 
bute in the Divine character as mercy at all. The most 
plausible arguments that could be used for this purpose 
might be readily met by equally plausible objections. And 
even without any objections whatever, take away the 
atonement, and there is no argument that will lead the 
sinner to rely on the mercy of God. This is a feeling which 
does not naturally nor easily enter into the guilty heart. 
The sinner is more inclined to dread God, and when sen- 
sible of his guilt, like Adam, to hide himself from the face of 
the Lord. Even the atonement is not uniformly and im- 
mediately successful in removing the fears which guilt has 
awakened, and in leading the sinner to believe that, after a 
thousand sins and follies past, God still views him with a 
Father's love, and will welcome him back with every ex- 
pression of a Father's tenderness. Take the atonement 
away, and the mourner in Zion is left without the hope of 
comfort. 

So far then is it from being true, that the mercy of God 
would have been ready to forgive the sinner without atone- 
ment, had justice allowed it ; and that it would have been 
highly honoured by so doing, that the very existence of 
mercy can be proved only by the atonement. - Eemove that 
proof of it, and I may very safely challenge all the wisdom 
of human philosophy to prove that any such thing as mercy 
exists. I know not if this view of the matter be urged up- 
on the attention of the Church with sufficient frequency 
and prominence : but if it were, I can hardly think that so 
strange an objection to the atonement could ever have 
been conceived, as that which considers the atonement, — 
the only fact by which the very existence of mercy, and 
much more its infinite extent, can be proved, — as a draw- 
back upon the fulness and freeness of that mercy. 



90 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



I need not dwell upon a remark, which however it is ne- 
cessary that I should here make ; that if Christ did not die 
solely as our substitute ; if the imputation of our guilt was 
only partly the cause of his death ; if he was a fallen sin- 
ful man, and died of necessity because he was so, then the 
argument which we draw from the atonement, in proof of 
the boundless extent of the Divine mercy, in order to lead 
the mourning sinner to u peace and joy in believing," 
totally fails. The sinner, in such circumstances, it is well 
known, is peculiarly ingenious in finding out arguments 
against his title to embrace the salvation offered to him in 
the gospel. We can triumphantly repel every argument 
that his fears suggest, against his having ground to hope 
in the mercy of God, by referring to the cross of Christ. 
Let it be the cross of a fallen sinful man, — let the imputa- 
tion of our guilt be only one of the causes that placed him 
there, — and it would require but a small portion of that 
argumentative skill which an awakened conscience never 
fails to supply, to neutralize, if not to annihilate, every 
ground of comfort that we can draw from the cross. The 
death of one fallen sinful man is far enough from proving 
that God is infinite in mercy, and that all men, however 
fallen and sinful they may be, may safely rely upon that 
mercy, nay, may u come boldly to the throne of grace, that 
we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of 
need." The death of a fallen sinful man could never, by 
any possibility, prove this. The death of Christ does prove 
it, else it is yet unproved, and our receiving of mercy and 
grace, instead of being so certain that they may be sought 
with all holy boldness, rests only upon a peradventure. 

In order to give effect to the atonement, tbe free and 
voluntary consent of all the parties concerned is essen- 
tially necessary. If God do not consent to accept of the 
obedience and sufferings of a Mediator, as affording a more 
glorious display of the Divine perfections, and more 
solemnly confirming the principles of his moral govern- 
ment, than either our obedience or our death could have 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



91 



ever done, the obedience and sufferings of the Mediator 
can be of no avail ; for God has an unquestionable right 
to determine whether he will forgive the sinner at all, 
and on what grounds he will do so. And this is the very 
ground of our reliance upon the atonement of Christ, that 
it was appointed by God himself : and that it was accom- 
plished to the full extent that he required, was proved by 
his raising up of Christ and giving him glory. ISTot less 
necessary is the consent of the sinner. For if he declare, 
that while he seeks for eternal life, he will not accept of it 
as the free gift of , God in Christ Jesus, but depends for his 
justification before God, in whole or in part, upon some- 
thing else than the atonement, all Scripture — nay, all rea- 
son — declares that he can have neither part nor lot in the 
matter. If the work of atonement be siifncient to reconcile 
us to God, and to render the pardon of our sins compa- 
tible with his perfections, then nothing needs to be added, 
or can be added, to that which is already perfect. And if 
his work be not perfectly sufficient for that purpose, it is 
vain, and worse than vain, to hope that we are capable of 
supplying the defect. The consent of the Mediator him- 
self is also clearly necessary. If he were appointed to the 
sufferings which he endured, against his own will, and was 
dragged reluctantly to the altar, and was compelled to 
resign a life which he would have gladly retained, and to 
endure sufferings which he would have avoided, had it 
been in his power, then nobody, I suppose, will maintain 
that sufferings thus inflicted could form any ground for his 
successful intercession, or in any way be rendered avail- 
able for our good. If, from the period of his appointment 
to his office, down to the period when he shall have fully 
accomplished the purposes for which he assumed it, there 
was one step which he did not voluntarily take — one 
moment when he would have withdrawn from his work if 
he could, that one step, that one moment vitiates the 
whole proceeding, and destroys the ground of our reliance 
upon it. For that is a step — a moment — with regard to 



92 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



which, instead of looking on the travail of his soul and 
being satisfied, he must regard as subjecting his soul to a 
travail which he did not expect, and which, had he an- 
ticipated it, would have prevented him from undertaking 
the work at all. His consent was consequently given, un- 
der a mitigated and mistaken view of what would be re- 
quired of him ; — a consent which, had he foreseen that 
step, — that moment, — he never would have given. Can 
we believe this of Christ? Can we suppose that when he 
consented to take our iniquities upon him, he had not a 
clear and most distinct view of the whole extent of suffer- 
ing to which his undertaking subjected him? Or can we 
suppose that even during the most agonizing moments of 
his course, he regretted, that is, virtually cancelled the 
consent which he had given to undertake it ? If so, then 
at that moment the benefits which we derive from him, 
supposing we could in such a case derive any benefits 
from him, were not the free gifts of his grace, but 
were forcibly wrung from a reluctant and unwilling bene- 
factor. 1 

Christ then voluntarily consented to be made sin for us ; 
and he gave that consent with a distinct view of all the' 
sufferings to which it would expose him ; and the most 
* agonizing of these sufferings never once induced him to 
withdraw that consent, by making him express or feel a 
wish that he had withheld it. Now this is one of the 
considerations that lead most directly to the proof of his 
divinity. Supposing him to have been a mere creature, 
then either he was a creature, created originally for a dif- 
ferent purpose, but was induced to consent to undertake 
the work of man's redemption ; or he was a creature 
created originally for that express purpose. In neither 
case could he have given that consent which is essential to 
the validity of atonement. If he was originally created 
for a different purpose, then we must admit a want of pre- 



1 See note F. Appendix. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



93 



science in God. He created tins being for one purpose, 
but afterwards found it necessary to alter this creature's 
destination, and employ him for a different purpose. But 
in this alteration of his destination, he, as a creature, 
totally dependant upon God, could have no consent either 
to give or to withhold. But let us take the very highest 
idea of him that has been, or that can be, framed by 
those who deny his divinity. Let us suppose him to be a 
super- angelic Spirit, created for the express purpose of 
manifesting the glory of God, in the work of redemption. 
It is plain that he could not in this case, any more than 
in the former, give that voluntary consent to being ap- 
pointed to make atonement, without which atonement is a 
nullity. For if he was a creature — a super- angelic crea- 
ture, created specifically for the purpose of becoming in- 
carnate and making atonement, then it is clear that he 
was appointed to this work, and to all the labours and 
sufferings which it imposed upon him, before he had a 
being at all, and consequently before he was capable of 
either giving or withholding his consent. To say, then, 
that Christ was a mere creature, even making him the 
very highest of all created beings, is effectually to deny the 
atonement. 

It must also be observed, that if he became, in his Incar- 
nation, a fallen sinful man, it does not follow indeed that 
he withdrew his consent to endure all the sufferings which 
his undertaking imposed upon him ; but we have no evi- 
dence that he did not, and we have strong ground for 
thinking that he did. And upon a point of such funda- 
mental importance, it is surely necessary that we should 
have evidence of the most indisputable kind. And such 
evidence, I shall in the sequel have occasion to show, we 
have in abundance. I merely remark here, in passing, 
that if Christ became a fallen sinful man, then he became 
a man as liable to death, as unable to avoid or resist it, as 
any other man, — an opinion that is openly and strenuously 
maintained, as of plain necessity it must, by those who 



94 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



say that Christ was fallen and sinful. He was then bound 
to die by two different obligations, — by that voluntary 
consent to become obedient unto death, without which 
his death could be no atonement, — and also by that per- 
sonal constitution which rendered his death unavoidable, 
whether he had been under any covenant obligation 
to die or not. Now, it is obvious, that the existence of the 
latter of these obligations altogether obscures the evidence 
of the former, by showing that he must have died though 
that obligation had never existed. It is of the utmost 
importance for us to know, that though every step of the 
painful process through which he passed, the benefits 
derived to us by his sufferings, were not by constraint 
wrung from him, but willingly purchased for us, — that he 
was not bound down to endurance by the iron chain of his 
own fallen and sinful personal constitution, but by the 
golden chain of that love to God whose glorious perfec- 
tions he was manifesting to the universe, and of that love 
to men through whose salvation he was making tl)e mani- 
festation, which no waters could quench, and no floods 
could drown. For aught that we can tell, that love was 
effectually quenched ; and in the intensity of his suffer- 
ings, he regretted that he had ever undertaken to bear 
them, and would have escaped from them, had he not, as 
if distrusting his own resolution, placed himself in a situa- 
tion which rendered escape impossible. For aught that 
we know, the reproach cast upon him on the cross was 
true — u He saved others, himself he cannot save." It 
may be that the insulting challenge, " Let him come down 
from the cross now, and we will believe," was a challenge 
which he declined, from total inability, through personal 
weakness, to meet it. And if so, what becomes of the 
atonement ? 

I may here notice what is often said as to the bearing of 
the atonement. It is said that as God is unchangeable, 
atonement, therefore, can have no bearing upon him. If, 
therefore, it have any bearing at all, it must be upon us. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



95 



If the Church taught that the great, and, indeed, only ob- 
ject of atonement, is to render God willing to forgive the 
sinner, then the remark would be perfectly correct. But 
the Church teaches no such doctrine ; nor have I met with 
it any where, save in the writings of Socinians, who very 
often represent the doctrine of the Church in this manner, 
that they may be able to overthrow it ; a task which they 
would find not quite so easy, if they would take the trouble 
to acquaint themselves with what it is that the Church 
really believes upon the subject. If, indeed, it could be said 
with truth of any of the offices of Christ, that it bears not 
upon men at all, but solely upon God, it is of his Priesthood 
that the remark would be made. The bearing of the other 
offices upon us is palpable. As a Prophet he enlightens 
us ; as a Bong he subdues us to himself, rules, and defends 
us ; and what more do we want ? or what is left for the 
Priesthood to accomplish ? If then the Priesthood can have 
no bearing upon God who is unchangeable, and is unne- 
cessary to us who are renewed without it, there seems to 
be no room for it whatever. This mode of reasoning has 
often been employed against the doctrine of atonement. 
And were the atonement that which the Socinian makes it, 
when he attempts to refute it, a means of rendering God 
willing to forgive, the reasoning would be good. But the 
Priesthood has an essential bearing upon us. It cancels the 
sentence of condemnation, and of aliens and enemies makes 
us children of God ; placing us in that situation in which 
we must of necessity be, before any grace whatever can be 
conferred upon us. But in changing the relation in which 
we stand toward God, it has as distinct a bearing upon 
him as upon us. It is not indeed requisite in order to ren- 
der him willing to forgive ; but as " God cannot deny him- 
self," it is requisite in order to render forgiveness compa- 
tible with his own perfections, and the interests of the uni- 
verse : and if, therefore, it do not bear upon the whole 
character of God, upon every perfection of his nature, and 
upon every principle of his moral government, then it has 



98 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



failed in attaining its object. When atonement, in this 
view of it, is shown to be unnecessary ; and when it is 
shown what possible purpose such a being as man can pos- 
sibly serve in the government of God, without such an 
atonement, it maybe necessary to enter into a more minute 
consideration of the bearing of the atonement. But as long 
as the opponents of the doctrine hunt a phantom of their 
own formation, they may be allowed to pursue it without 
molestation, as the Catholic doctrine is not at all concern- 
ed in the result of the chase. 

So far, then, it appears certain that Christ was a Priest, 
and that his death was truly an atonement ; for he suffer- 
ed for no sin of his own ; yet he did die for sin ; " For the 
iniquities of my people was he smitten." His death, then, 
was the penalty due to our sins, for on no other ground 
can it be reconciled with justice. And as the justice of 
God demanded the death of Christ, when he took our ini- 
quities upon him, so the mercy of God no less imperiously 
demanded his death, because without it, the very existence 
of mercy could never have been proved. It appears, too, 
that the efficacy of the atonement may be securely relied 
upon, because it was appointed by God, and its accom- 
plishment rewarded by him ; and also because it was vo- 
luntarily undertaken by Christ, and voluntarily carried on 
by him through its every step. The consent of the sinner 
alone, therefore, is necessary to enable him to reap all the 
benefits of atonement. 

Having mentioned one of the necessary qualifications of 
Christ for the making of an atonement, that he could un-. 
dertake it with his own voluntary consent, and a consent 
given with a clear view of all the sufferings to the endur- 
ance of which his undertaking would expose him, — a con- 
sent without which his sufferings could have had no atoning 
efficacy, and a consent which, had he been a mere creature, 
however exalted, he never could by any possibility have 
given — I cannot choose a better place for noticing some 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



97 



other qualifications that were necessary to enable him to 
make an atonement for our sins. 

It was essentially necessary to the accomplishment of 
the atonement, that he who undertook it should be God. 
Without being Divine, our great High Priest could have 
been only such a Priest as were those under the law, and 
he could have offered no more effectual a sacrifice than 
they did. His Divinity was necessary not merely to en- 
able him to give that voluntary consent to his appoint- 
ment, without which his death could have been no atone- 
ment ; but was no less necessary in order to furnish him 
with an offering. " It is of necessity that he should have 
somewhat to offer." One, among many reasons, why the 
sacrifices under the law were of no avail to the taking away , 
of sin, was, that the animals offered were already as com- 
pletely the property of God as they could be made, by be- 
ing presented to him in sacrifice. " I will take no bullock 
out of thy house, nor he-goats out of thy folds ; for every 
beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand 
hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains ; and the 
wild beasts of the field are mine." And had our Saviour 
not been God, his sacrifice must have obviously laboured 
under the same defect. He could not have said of that 
life which he gave for a lost world, what no created being- 
can say, " No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down 
of myself ; I have power to lay it down, and I have power 
to take it again." This, I say, is what no created being- 
could ever say ; for the highest of created beings has re- 
ceived his life from God, holds it in dependence upon God, 
and has no authority whatever to lay it down. But 
Christ, in giving his life for that of the world, was giving 
that which was strictly and properly his own, that which 
he assumed at his own pleasure, that which could be de- 
manded from him by no law, and that which could be 
wrung from him by no power ; but was assailed in vain 
by death, and him that had the power of death. In lay- 

E 



CHUIST OUR PRIEST. 



ing down his life for his sheep, therefore, he was laying 
down that which was entirely his own, — his own in such 
a way as no creature ever did, or by any possibility ever 
can, call his life his own ; and which he had consequently 
the most indisputable right to dispose of as he pleased. 

But it is obvious that our Saviour's sacrifice altogether 
wanted that indispensable characteristic of an acceptable 
and efficacious sacrifice, that it should be offered by him 
who can say that it is his own, and that he has an un- 
questionable right to offer it, if we suppose that Christ 
was a fallen and sinful man. For then he had no more 
control over his own life than we have over ours ; and 
could not say that he had power to lay down that which, in 
reality, he had no power to retain ; but which he must 
give up, whether he pleased or not. To maintain, then, 
that Christ was a fallen sinful man, is most clearly and 
directly to deny the atonement ; for it is to deny that he 
had any right to dispose of that life which he gave for the 
world. This matter will require a more extended consi- 
deration at a more advanced period of our discussion ; but 
the remarks just made are, I think, sufficient to show that 
Christ was neither a mere creature, nor, as to his manhood, 
fallen and sinful. 

In order to make the atonement, it was not less neces- 
sary that he should be truly Man, than that he should be 
truly God. Had he not been truly man, then the serpent's 
head could not have been bruised by the " woman's seed." 
Had he not been truly man, by whom our foe was con- 
quered, then, as Irenaeus remarks, our foe had not been 
fairly overcome, for as " by man came death," even so was 
it necessary that by man should come u the resurrection 
from the dead." Again, the atonement was to be made 
by suffering. But the Divinity cannot suffer. It was ne- 
cessary, therefore, that the Son should assume, and assume 
into such union with himself, a nature capable of suffering, 
as would render his sufferings in that nature his own suf- 
ferings, just as certainly as his Divine personality is his 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



99 



own ; so that the Scriptures speak of God purchasing the 
Church with his own blood, and of the crucifixion of the 
Lord of Glory. It was necessary also that the atonement 
should be made by him who was truly man, not only be- 
cause it was man that was to be redeemed, but because 
man is the only rational being who is capable of suffering 
without personal guilt. Had Christ assumed the angelic 
nature, in order in that nature to have manifested the per- 
fections of God, he could in that nature have endured no 
other death than spiritual death, which is identical with 
sin. But assuming a human nature, he could, by an exer- 
cise of Divine power, die, without doing, and without 
knowing sin. Moreover, it was necessary that he should 
be man, and should make the atonement, from which all 
the rational families of God were to learn wisdom in that 
nature which is at present the lowest of rational natures, 
but which, from its uniting of the only two substances of 
which we have any knowledge, matter and spirit, in its 
composition, is capable of becoming the most perfect of 
created natures ; for had the atonement been made in a 
higher nature, that knowledge of God, which it alone can 
give, would have been unknown to man, one of the rational 
families of God. And had it been made for fallen spirits 
alone, it might have been doubted whether it could descend 
so low as to us. Thus, had the atonement been made in 
a higher nature than that of man, the lessons taught by it 
would have been neither so extensively nor so impressive- 
ly taught. This subject also, however, will require more 
particular notice hereafter. In the meantime, it seems suf- 
ficiently plain, that he who made the atonement must of 
necessity be man. 

It was also necessary that he who made atonement for 
the sins of men should himself be perfectly holy. Under 
the law no person could be found possessed of this perfect 
holiness : but the utmost care was taken to render the Le- 
vitical high priest, as far as possible, a striking type of 
Christ in this respect. He was required to be perfectly 



100 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



free from all bodily defect and deformity. He was to be 
born of a mother who had been, not a widow, but a virgin, 
when married to his father. He was consecrated to his 
office by ceremonies of the most solemn kind. He wore 
upon his forehead a golden plate, on which was graven, 
like the engravings of a signet, " holiness to the lord." 
He was not permitted, like other men, to mourn for those 
that died, nor to contract any ceremonial uncleanness, even 
for his father or his mother. And on the great day of 
atonement, when he entered into the sanctuary, he pre- 
pared himself for the solemnity by offering first an atone- 
ment for himself. Thus, the utmost degree of ceremonial 
holiness was conferred upon him, that he might be a pro- 
per type of the immaculate holiness of our great High 
Priest. 

]STow, if all this ceremonial holiness was necessary in 
those priests who were only types of the great High Priest, 
how much more necessary was all the reality of that holi- 
ness in our great High Priest himself ? If this ceremonial 
holiness was necessary in him who appeared before the 
Shechinah, how much more necessary was all the reality of 
that holiness in him who is the Shechinah ? If the one was 
necessary in him who appeared only once in the year in 
the earthly tabernacle, how much more necessary must the 
other be considered to be in him who appears continually 
in the heavenly sanctuary to bless us, not once in the year, 
but always from thence? If such was the awful solemnity 
to be observed in passing, on one appointed day, into the 
holy of holies, how unspeakable the holiness of him whose 
death rent asunder the veil that concealed that holy 
place from mortal eye, thus profaning the typical repre- 
sentation while he went into the reality, even into holy 
places not made with hands, there to appear before God 
for us ? 

JSTow, it is not denied that Christ was perfectly immacu- 
late ; but it is maintained, at the same time, that he was 
fallen and sinful. The one of these positions appears to 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



101 



me to be a direct contradiction of the other. If the pro- 
pensities of fallen man were in him, these propensities 
were in themselves criminal before God, entering into and 
unfitting him for the presence of God, until, like the high 
priest under the law, he had first offered sacrifice for his 
own sins. And that he did redeem his own creature sub- 
stance, is a tenet openly avowed by some of those who 
maintain that he was fallen and sinful. But if he who was 
fallen and sinful could redeem himself, I see not why we, 
who are also fallen and sinful, should not be able to re- 
deem ourselves. If it be said that we have been guilty of 
actual sin, which he never was, I reply that still he was in 
the state of an infant, a fallen sinful creature, but without 
actual sin. If, then, his death redeemed himself, — or his 
own creature substance, which was just as much him- 
self as his Divinity was himself, — then, with regard to in- 
fants at least, we may affirm, that their death is a redemp- 
tion of themselves. Now, while I maintain the salvation 
of all infants, dying before actual sin, I deny that any one 
of them is or can be saved by its own death, but only by 
the death of Christ. Besides, if the death of Christ, a 
fallen, sinful, but actually guiltless being, could redeem not 
only himself but others also ; why should not the death of 
other fallen, sinful, but actually guiltless beings, be suffi- 
cient to redeem not only themselves but others also ? And 
upon what principle can we find fault with those who of- 
fered to God their " first-born for their transgression, and 
the fruit of their body for the sins of their soul," excepting 
that the infants themselves had not given their consent to 
the sacrifice ? If the sacrifice of one fallen, sinful, but 
guiltless being, be sufficient to redeem the souls of others ; 
the sacrifice of another fallen, sinful, but guiltless being, 
must have equal efficacy, unless some exception of this 
kind be taken ; an exception, be it remarked, which has 
no reference whatever to the personal constitution of the 
being excepted against, — a personal constitution which fits 
the fallen, sinful, but guiltless infant, as effectually- for 



102 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



either priest or sacrifice, as the fallen, sinful, but guiltless 
Saviour could be. 

For, it must be remarked, that Christ was required to 
be holy, not merely as the Priest who offered the atoning 
sacrifice, but also as the Lamb which was offered. To 
offer to God that which was not perfect in its kind was, 
even under the law, an offence of the most grievous nature. 
14 Cursed be the deceiver that hath in his flock a male, and 
voweth and sacrificeth to the Lord a corrupt thing : for I 
am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is 
dreadful among the heathen." In this respect, also, the 
divinity was essentially necessary to our Lord, in order to 
give that dignity to his person, and that value to his suf- 
ferings, which they could not otherwise have possessed. 
His sufferings are available for our salvation, not simply 
as they are sufferings, but as they are the sufferings of the 
" Lord of glory his blood cleanseth us from all sins, not 
simply as it is pure, and innocent, and holy blood, but as 
it is the blood of him who is " God over all, blessed for 
ever, Amen." He was not divested of the divinity on the 
cross, for he could not be divested of himself ; and his di- 
vinity was himself, as much as the humanity which suffer- 
ed was himself. The Godhead in him was not separated 
from his Godhead properties, but inseparably united to his 
own humanity, sustained it to endure what would have 
overwhelmed any other, until he could say, " It is finished." 
And this was what rendered his death an exhibition of 
the divine perfection, from which angels learn wisdom, 
that he who was " bruised for our iniquities " was not a 
man emptied of the divinity, and dying in consequence of 
the sinfulness of his flesh ; but was God purchasing his 
Church with "his own blood." As the sacrifice offered, 
then, the divinity was not less essential to him than it 
was essential to him as the Priest by whom the sacrifice 
was offered. 

Both as the victim offered, then, and as the Priest who 
offered it, it was necessary that Christ should possess all 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



103 



the perfection of holiness, — a holiness not resulting from a 
successful resistance of the motions of sin in the flesh, but 
a holiness resultiug from the total absence of any such 
motions. For an inclination to sin, however successfully 
resisted, and however completely repressed from going forth 
into actual transgression, is itself criminal, and totally in- 
compatible with the holiness of the " Lamb of God, which 
taketh away the sins of the world." If such inclination 
was in Christ, then was he under the same necessity as 
the Levitical high priest, to prepare himself for appearing 
before the Lord, by offering first a sacrifice for his own 
sins. The holiness of him, therefore, who, " through the 
eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God," was 
not a holiness that resulted from a successful repression of 
the sinful inclinations of the flesh, or from a successful 
overcoming of the renitency of the human will against the 
Divine will ; but from the total absence of any such incli- 
nations, or such renitency in the Man anointed, in the 
moment of conception, with all the plentitucle of the Holy 
Ghost. Had he been in any manner, or to any degree, in- 
volved in the guilt of men, he could not have substituted 
himself in the room of guilty men, but must have died for 
his own guilt. 

Upon this subject I shall again avail myself of the lan- 
guage of Augustine. After stating that a sacrifice can be 
offered only to God, that it must be offered by a righteous 
and holy priest, that it must be accepted by those for 
whose sakes it is offered, and that it must be without 
blemish, he thus goes on : — " Who then was so righteous 
and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no need 
to purge away his own sins, original or actual, by sacrifice ? 
And what could be so properly taken from men, to be of- 
fered for them, as human flesh ? And what so fit for this 
immolation as mortal flesh ? And what so pure for purify- 
ing the sins of mortal men as flesh born in the womb, and 
from the womb of the virgin, without any contagion of 
carnal concupiscence? And what so grateful could be of- 



104 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



fered or received as the flesh of our sacrifice, the prepared 
body of our Priest ? That as four things are considered in 
every sacrifice, to whom it is offered, by whom it is offer- 
ed, what is offered, and for whom it is offered, the self-same, 
only, and true Mediator, reconciling us to God by the sa- 
crifice of peace, remained one with him to whom he offered, 
made one in himself of those for whom he offered, and 
was himself both the person who offered and the thing 
offered." 1 

Another part of the office of Christ as our Priest is to 
make intercession for us. All that I have to do at present 
is to show that Christ actually does intercede for us, and 
to notice one or two of the principal circumstances con- 
nected with that intercession. That he interceded for his 
people before his appearance in the flesh is, I think, very 
distinctly shown in the first chapter of Zechariah. There 
it is written, " Then the angel of the Lord answered and 
said, O Lord of hosts, how long wilt thou not have mercy 
on Jerusalem, and on the cities of Judah, against which 
thou hast had indignation these threescore and ten years ? 
And the Lord answered the angel that talked with me 
with good words, and comfortable words." Now it requires 
no very nice attention to the structure of the prophecy 
from which this quotation is made, to show that the an- 
gel who is here represented as interceding for Judah and 
Jerusalem, and who was answered with good and comfort - 

1 " Quis ergo tam justus et sanctus sacerdos, quam unicus Filius Dei, qui non 
opus haberet per sacrificium sua purgare peccata, nec originalia, nec ex hu- 
mana vita quee adduntur ? Et quid tam congruenter ab liominibus sumere- 
tur quod pro eis offerretur, quam humana caro ? Et quid tam aptum huic 
immolationi, quam caro mortalis ? Et quid tam mundum pro mundandis 
vitiis mortalium, quam sine ulla contagione carnalis concupiscentise caro 
nata in utero et ex utero virginali ? Et quid tam grate offerri et suscipi possit, 
quani caro sacrificii nostri, corpus effectum sacerdotis nostri ? Ut quoniam 
quatuor considerantur in omni sacrificio, cui offeratur, a quo offeratur, quid 
offeratur, pro quibus offeratur, idem ipse unus verusque Mediator, per sacri- 
ficium pacis reconcilians nos Deo, unum cum illo maneret cui offerebat, 
unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat, unus ipse esset qui offerebat, et quod 
offerebat." — De Tritiitate, Lib. iv. Cap. 14. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



able words, was no other than the angel of the covenant, 
the Lord Jesus Christ, who is distinctly recognized as 
Jehovah. In this prophecy he is here stated very plainly 
to have exercised the office of intercessor, and to have ex- 
ercised it with efficacy, long before his appearance in the 
flesh. That he exercised the same part of the priestly 
office while he was on earth, needs no proof to those who 
are in the habit of reading the Bible. We have there a 
most instructive specimen of his intercession for his people 
in general, in the seventeenth chapter of John, and we 
have also a proof of his intercession for every individual 
believer, in his declaration to Peter, — " I have prayed for 
thee, that thy faith fail not." I do not stop just now to 
show how clearly this proves him to have been a Priest 
when he was on earth, but go on to remark that he con- 
tinues to make intercession for his people now. Of this I 
can offer no more satisfactory proof than that which is 
furnished by the following texts of Scriptures : " Who is he 
that condemneth ? It is Christ that died, yea rather that 
is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who 
also maketh intercession for us." 1 " Wherefore he is able 
also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God 
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for 
them." 2 

With regard to this intercession, I shall not inquire whe- 
ther he makes use of words, or only presents himself silent- 
ly before God, as it were a u Lamb that had been slain ; " 
neither shall I inquire whether actual prostration be em- 
ployed in his intercession, — questions which I surely cha- 
racterize very gently when I say that they are foolish. 
They have arisen, I suppose, from considering the inter- 
cession of Christ as having a reference solely to our prayers. 
Now it is certain that our prayers can find acceptance with 
God only through the intercession of Christ. This is 
indeed acknowledged in our prayers, all of which we offer 



1 Rom. viii. 34. 



\? Heb. vii. 25. 

E 2 



106 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



up in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and beg an 
answer to our prayers only for his sake. But every duty 
that we perform, every grace that we exercise, and every 
blessing that we receive, is as intimately connected with 
the intercession of our Mediator as our prayers are. The 
very word intercession has received an improper and in- 
correct limitation, from its supposed exclusive connection 
with prayer. But the intercession of Christ just means 
that he stands between God and men, as the medium 
through whom alone every deed of man becomes accept- 
able to God, and every blessing that God confers upon 
man is conveyed. We are wrong if we suppose that any 
prayer can be heard, if we do not offer it in the name of 
Christ ; but if we suppose that any work of righteousness 
that we do can be accepted of God, or rewarded by him, 
if it be not wrought in the name of Christ, we are equally 
wrong. If we offer up any prayer to God, on the ground 
of our own righteousness, and desire to be heard because we 
deserve to be so, we are thus setting aside the intercession of 
Christ, and cannot by any possibility be heard. But if we 
work any deed of righteousness, which we hope will be ac- 
cepted of God and rewarded by him on account of its own 
excellence, we are equally setting aside the intercession of 
Christ, and are equally deceiving ourselves. " The plough- 
ing of the wicked is sin." And why? Just because the 
ungodliness of the principles upon which he acts, having 
no reference whatever to his dependence upon God, com- 
municates its contamination even to his most indifferent 
actions. The prayers and alms of the Pharisee, though 
excellent deeds in themselves, are hateful in the sight of 
God, for they are performed without any regard to the au- 
thority of God, and without a reference to him for their 
reward. In the same way, not only the good deeds of the 
believer, but his most indifferent actions, derive their 
complexion from his general principles, and, wrought in the 
name of the Lord Jesus Christ, they become sacrifices of 
righteousness, accepted of, and rewarded by God, as ex- 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



107 



pressions and fruits of faith in the Redeemer whom he hath 
provided. If, then, we do not recognise the intercession 
of our Lord Jesus Christ in every deed of righteousness 
that we do, and in every grace that we exercise, and in 
every blessing that we receive ; if, in short, we confine 
our views of his intercession to our prayers alone, in which 
that intercession is distinctly and formally acknowledged, 
we are limiting our views in a way that cannot fail to 
prove most injurious both to our progress in the Christian 
life, and to our enjoyment of spiritual pleasure. 

While I think it of the utmost importance to inculcate 
upon my reader the fact, that for every step that he takes 
in the Christian life he is indebted to the intercession of 
the Lord Jesus Christ, — that he can make no progress 
until he can say, "I live, nevertheless not I, but Christ 
liveth in me," I hold it also important to remark, that the 
intercession of the Lord Jesus Christ must be always 
successful. What we ask in his name, believing, we 
shall, we must receive. Nothing can be more certain than 
this. He is the well-beloved Son, and what we ask for 
his sake, if it be agreeable to his will, cannot be denied. 
God requires us to hear him when he instructs us ; and can 
we suppose that God himself will refuse to hear him when 
he calls upon his Father to fulfil those petitions which his 
instructions alone have taught us to offer ? His intercession 
must prevail, because, in asking every blessing that the 
Gospel promises in his name, we are asking nothing but 
that which we have a covenant right to ask. We deserve 
nothing, but Christ hath deserved all things ; and if it be 
true, as I apprehend it most clearly and certainly is, that 
our sins were imputed to Christ, and that his righteous- 
ness is imputed to us, then there is nothing that we may 
not ask. The terms of the covenant of salvation have 
already been fulfilled by our Divine representative, and 
whatever he deserved we may confidently ask ; for if the 
covenant has been fulfilled on our part, we may rest as- 
sured that it will not fail to be fulfilled on God's pan, 



108 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



His faithfulness and justice are now pledged to forgive us 
our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. When, 
therefore, we ask for all blessings, we ask only for that to 
which we have an undoubted right, if we be truly members 
of the body of Christ ; for in him all fulness dwells, and 
dwells just for our sakes, that " of his fulness we may all 
receive, and grace for grace." 

It is the most delightful privilege of the Gospel, that 
the believer has at all times access to God, with the per- 
fect certainty of being heard. His prayer is considered as 
being the prayer of Christ himself, — as in truth it is, for 
the salvation of the believer is the glory of Christ, — and it 
rises to the throne of grace with all the efficacy which such 
a consideration can give it ; and is enforced with all the 
weight of his merits, and with all the sanctity of his peace- 
making blood. ^ This is the confidence that we have in 
him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he 
heareth us. And if we know that he hears us, whatsoever 
we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we de- 
sired of him." 1 From this view of the matter, I think 
two conclusions appear to be perfectly certain. The first 
is, that a prayer offered up to God, without any reference 
to the intercession of Christ, cannot, by any possibility, be 
granted ; for this would be to prove that there is some 
other way of access to God than through Christ Jesus, 
and that, in fact, his mediation is unnecessary. The next 
is, that a prayer offered up to Gocl, with reference to, and 
dependence upon, the intercession of the Lord J esus Christ, 
must, to an absolute certainty, be heard and answered. 
When Christ intercedes for us, our prayer must be grants 
ed ; because he asks only what is agreeable to the will of 
the Father, and what, therefore, the Father has pleasure 
in granting. He asks only what he has paid for, and 
what, therefore, justice requires to be granted. He asks, 
as Mediator, only what, as God, he has the power and the 
privilege of bestowing, and what therefore must, most 

» 1 John v. 14. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



109 



certainly, be bestowed. The prayer of faith, therefore, 
must prevail. 

But both these positions, it will perhaps be said, are di- 
rectly contradicted by well-established facts ; and against 
facts there is no reasoning. A slight examination however 
will, I apprehend, be sufficient to show that this is not the 
case. With regard to the first of these conclusions, that a 
prayer not offered in the name of Christ cannot be grant- 
ed, I need enter into no discussion ; for they who u deny 
the Lord that bought them," may be presumed to be but 
little in the habit of praying at all. Spiritual blessings 
they cannot receive, for they depend not upon the Spirit of 
God, but upon their own exertions, for all the virtue that 
they hope to acquire. Temporal prosperity they may pos- 
sess. But while the arrangements of Providence render it 
necessary that temporal good should be indiscriminately 
distributed, with little regard to moral character, prospe- 
rity is far from being always a blessing. " The prosperity 
of fools destroys them." 

With regard to the other conclusion, that the prayer 
of faith, offered in the name of Christ, must be heard, I 
conceive nothing can be more derogatory to the Divine 
character than to doubt it. The facts which seem to mili- 
tate against this conclusion maybe satisfactorily accounted 
for by such considerations as the following. First, it must 
be recollected that the prayer even of a true Christian is 
not always a Christian prayer. I refer not to that coldness 
of heart, and deadness of affection, and poverty of expec- 
tation, and distrustful timidity which so often characterize 
our prayers ; but to that mere formality of which the 
Christian may occasionally be guilty. There may be a want 
of any exercise of faith in the prayers which we offer up. 
The name of Christ may be mentioned merely as a form, 
and without any real specific believing reference to, or 
reliance upon, his Mediation. Now, we cannot hope that 
he is to adopt as his own, and enforce with all the efficacy 
of his intercession, a prayer which we are offering up in a 



110 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



way which clearly indicates to his all-seeing eye, that we 
are taking no interest in, and feeling no anxiety about, the 
matter, but are praying in mere formality. 

Again, we may have offered up our prayer in faith, but 
we may then have gone away and forgotten it. But if we 
wish to have our petitions granted, we must not only pray, 
but we must also " look up," waiting for and expecting an 
answer. If we have engaged some person to intercede for 
us with some great man from whom we expect a favour, 
we wait with the most anxious expectation to learn the re- 
sult of the application. But if, when we have applied to 
God, through the Lord Jesus Christ, we go away, and 
think no more about the matter, nor make use of the means 
which he may actually be putting into our hands, for the 
very purpose of enabling us to obtain the blessing that we 
desired, then no doubt our prayer fails ; yet is it not the 
less true that the prayer of faith fails not. Our petition 
may have been heard, while our subsequent carelessness 
has thrown away the blessing. 

Farther, we may often pray for things, the possession of 
which would prove really hurtful to us, and the denial of 
which things, therefore, is the most gracious answer to our 
prayer. God alone can tell what is really good for us, and 
graciously reserves to himself the prerogative of determin- 
ing whether the petitions which we offer be fit to be grant- 
ed. " Me have ye bereaved of my children," said the 
mourning patriarch ; u Joseph is not, and Simeon is not, and 
ye will take Benjamin away. All these things are against 
me." Nay, Jacob ! but these are the steps whereby God 
is providing a place, where thou and thine may be satisfied 
in the days of famine. How often does the wayward child 
straggle and cry, while the tenderest hand is performing 
offices essentially necessary for its health and comfort ! And 
how often are we, in the hands of God, very wayward 
children, fretting and murmuring at that which is neces- 
sary for our spiritual health and comfort ! God may there- 
fore often deny our petitions, because he sees that to grant 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



Ill 



them would be detrimental to us. But in this case there 
is no reason to doubt, that he will always give us a bless- 
ing more appropriate to our situation, and of greater value 
than that which he has refused. In this case, then, though 
our petition be denied, yet the prayer of faith is not in 
vain. A beloved child may ask an indulgent father for 
something which the father sees would be hurtful. This 
therefore he refuses ; and the child, who knows both that 
his father is wiser than he, and knows much better what 
is good for him, and also that he is so good that he will re- 
fuse him nothing that is really good for him, will rest per- 
fectly satisfied with the decision. 

One or two objections to the doctrine of Christ's inter- 
cession may deserve a passing notice. It is said, if the 
Father himself loveth us, as our Lord declares, then there 
can be no need of any intercessor to induce him to grant 
all necessary blessings to those whom he himself loves. It 
is also said that if, as we maintain, God has actually de- 
creed to confer upon the believer every thing necessary to 
fit him for the kingdom of heaven, and to bring him into 
it, then can we want no intercessor to obtain for us those 
blessings. These objections, if they have any validity, 
must put an end not merely to the doctrine of Christ's in- 
tercession, but to the propriety of any prayers on our part. 
For, on the principle on which they are founded, we must 
say, that it is useless to make known our wants and de- 
sires to God, who knows what things we have need of be- 
fore we ask him, and better than we can know, and who is 
abundantly disposed to supply all our wants. God has, 
indeed, determined to give all necessary blessings to the 
believer ; but he has also determined to give them only 
through the mediation of his own Son. And surely it ar- 
gues no defect of love on the part of God, that in order to 
render our salvation compatible with the interests of the 
universe, and the blessings appointed for us perfectly se- 
cured to us, he has appointed his own Son to be the me- 



112 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



dium through whom our desires may be addressed to him, 
and his blessings conveyed to us. 

There is one objection, however, which, if it can be esta- 
blished, will effectually destroy the doctrine of the inter- 
cession, and remove all the comfort that we derive from 
the thought, that when we approach God in prayer, we are 
sure to be heard, because we are introduced to him by the 
Son of his love. If Christ was not a Priest when he died, 
then his death was no atonement ; and the atonement de- 
nied, the whole foundation of his intercession is removed. 
But if I have succeeded in showing the necessity and the 
reality of the atonement, then the certainty and the pre- 
valence of his intercession necessarily follows. It must be 
farther remarked, that as a fallen, sinful, but regenerated 
man, was totally unfit to make atonement ; even so such a 
man could give us no security in the character of interces- 
sor. For if one fallen, sinful, but regenerated man, can 
effectually intercede for us with God, then why should not 
another man of the same character perform for us the same 
service ? Or rather, why should any regenerated man place 
any reliance whatever upon another man, wiio is exactly 
in his own situation, fallen, sinful, but regenerated ? It is 
useless to say that his intercession avails, because he was 
appointed by God to the office of intercessor ; for if he was 
not a Priest while he was on earth, if he became a Priest 
only by virtue of his resurrection, then he has no such ap- 
pointment that we know of ; and, moreover, without the 
atonement, there is no ground laid for his intercession, 
which is just the constant application of the benefits of the 
atonement. And as little can it avail to say, that his in- 
tercession may be relied upon, because he is God as well 
as man ; for they who maintain that he was a fallen sinful 
man, maintain also that in him the divinity was quiescent, 
, was self-suspended, was limited ; in other words, was a 
non-entity. It is declared, that in him the Godhead per- 
son was separated from Godhead properties. Now, I would 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



113 



remark, not only that if this separation existed while 
Christ was on earth, his intercession can have no place, for 
he could lay no effectual ground for it ; but I would re- 
mark farther, that if this separation be possible at any 
time, then it is perfectly clear that there is no such being 
as God at all. If God can, at any time, or under any cir- 
cumstances, cease to be " infinite, eternal, and unchange- 
able, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, good- 
ness, and truth," then he never could possess these charac- 
teristics at any time, — that is, he never existed. And if 
Christ be God as well as man, then that was his character 
when he was on earth as certainly as it is so now. And if 
this was not his character when he was on earth, — if he 
had divested himself of these, the essential characteristics 
of Godhead, then not only do atonement and intercession 
fail ; but he was not God then, he cannot be so now, nor 
can there be a God at all, if he is capable of being separat- 
ed from his Godhead properties. 

Such are some of the results of the system that teaches 
us to believe that our Lord's humanity was fallen sinful 
humanity ; results not drawn from that system by remote 
and dubious deduction, nor wrung out of it, by torturing 
it into conclusions which would not readily suggest them- 
selves to the supporters of that system ; but results direct- 
ly and unavoidably springing from what they expressly 
avow. For the quiescence, the suspension, the limitation 
of the Godhead in Christ is openly avowed. And this is 
much worse than maintaining that he was a mere man ; for 
they who maintain that he was a mere man, yet leave un- 
touched the principles by which the existence of God is 
proved. But if we believe that in Christ the Godhead was 
quiescent, suspended, limited, we may continue to believe, 
if we please, that there is a God ; but our belief is perfectly 
gratuitous ; we have swept away every ground upon which 
his being can be proved ; we have left ourselves no defence 
against the arguments of him who denies that there is a 
God ; for a Godhead that is capable of quiescence, suspen- 



1U 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



sion, and limitation, is plainly no Godhead at all. At' least 
so thought Elijah, when, deriding the divinity of Baal, he 
said to the priests, " Cry aloud, for he is a god ; either 
he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or 
peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked." 1 

Christ, then, was really and truly a Priest, an unfallen 
and sinless Priest. He had a life which was strictly his 
own, which he could by no law be required either to as- 
sume or to lay down ; a life which, in this respect, differed 
essentially from the life of every created being ; for no 
created being assumes life, but receives it at the will of 
God, without the possibility of giving his own previous 
consent to its reception, and without the possibility of hav- 
ing or of acquiring any right to dispose of that life as he 
pleases. Christ thus having a human life, differing from the 
life of every created being, had power to lay it down at his 
own pleasure, and in any manner that he might think pro- 
per. He did lay it down, and his death was really and truly 
an atonement. It was the payment of our debt, the ransom 
of our redemption, the endurance of our penalty, the price 
by which we were purchased, the removal of the wrath of 
God from us, by its transference to our substitute. This 
atonement was demanded by all the attributes of the Di- 
vine character, all of which are gloriously illustrated by 
it. It was demanded by the interests of all the rational 
family of God, which would have been involved in dismay 
and in ruin, had sin been pardoned without that proof of 
its unalterable hatefulness in the sight of God, which the 
atonement alone could furnish. The justice and mercy of 
God are the attributes most commonly brought into view 
when speaking of the atonement ; of the former of which it 
is said, that God might very justly have departed from his 
right to punish, and the latter would have been much bet- 
ter displayed by the absence of any atonement. It has 
been shown that such a statement results from a total mis- 



* 1 Kings xviii. 27. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



115 



apprehension of the nature of atonement : — that justice did 
imperiously demand it ; and that, without it, the very ex- 
istence of such an attribute as mercy in^God is totally un- 
susceptible of any satisfactory proof. By the atonement, 
Christ has laid a ground for an intercession which must 
always be effectual, so that the prayer of faith offered unto 
God through him can never fail to be heard. " For Christ 
is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which 
are the figures of the true ; but into heaven itself, now to 
appear in the presence of God for us." 1 We have seen al- 
so at every step, how utterly ruinous to the Priesthood of 
our Lord, and to all the hopes that we found upon it, and 
to all the comfort that we draw from it, is the system which 
maintains that he was a fallen sinful man, and entered up- 
on the Priesthood only in consequence of his resurrection 
from the dead. I proceed now to mention some of the du- 
ties which we owe to Christ as our High Priest. 

The most important duty, and that which we most 
clearly and obviously owe to our great High Priest, is to 
renounce every self-righteous thought, and every self-de- 
pendent feeling, and account the pardon of our sins and 
eternal life as solely the free gift of God through him. 
That we can be justified by any deeds of the law, or by 
any works of righteousness, is a notion so often and direct- 
ly denied in Scripture, — is so utterly inconsistent with the 
doctrine of atonement, and is so clearly repugnant to right 
reason, that it is matter of wonder that any man, and espe- 
cially men believing the Scriptures to be the word of God, 
could ever for a moment adopt such a notion. That every 
deed of righteousness that we do is not one of the causes 
but one of the effects of our justification, is a truth of the 
veiy utmost importance ; and a truth which may, perhaps, 
be most satisfactorily proved by considering some of the 
most common objections that are opposed to it. 

It has been objected to the doctrine that we are justified 



1 Hebrews ix. 24, 



116 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



solely by the atonement made by Christ, that no necessary 
connection can be discovered between the pardon of a 
guilty person and the death of an innocent one ; nor can 
any one explain how the latter can be the cause of the 
former. To this it has been answered, — and the answer 
is a complete counterpoise to the objection, — that there is 
just as little connection that we can see between pardon 
and repentance, or between pardon and anything else that 
may be considered as its cause, as between pardon and 
atonement. If it be said that this reply is calculated 
rather to silence the objector than to remove the objection, 
it may be farther remarked, that both the objection and 
the answer are particular instances of a universal truth, 
which is, that no necessary connection is discoverable 
by us between any two events, which, nevertheless, we 
are accustomed to consider as cause and effect. And if no 
such connection be discoverable in any case, then it can 
form no objection to the doctrine of atonement, that such 
a connection is not discoverable in it. It may also be ob- 
served, that the will of God has established a connection 
between the atonement of Christ and the pardon of the be- 
liever ; and what, besides the fiat of the Almighty, is re- 
quisite to establish a connection between any two things ? 
or what else has made any one thing in the universe to be 
the cause of any other thing ? Fire consumes what is sub- 
mitted to its action. Is this a power residing in the ele- 
ment itself, which has not been conferred upon it by God, 
nor can be suspended at his pleasure ? No man who ad- 
mits the being of God will pretend to say this. And if, 
even in physical things, the will of God be allowed to be 
the sole ground of the connection between cause and effect, 
much more clearly must the same admission be made with 
regard to the pardon of sin. If a man has been offended, 
he may prescribe what terms he pleases as the condition 
of pardoning the offence ; and surely we cannot reasonably 
deny to God a privilege which we allow that every man 
possesses. It is true that a man may prescribe terms that 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



117 



are foolish and unreasonable, a supposition which we can- 
not for a moment admit with regard to God. If, there- 
fore, we could see no reason why the pardon of sin is com- 
municated through the expiatory sacrifice of Christ J esus 
— if we could see no necessity for atonement whatever, yet, 
when the fact is revealed to us by God, that we can be 
pardoned only through a crucified Kedeemer ; it would be- 
come us, as offending creatures, depending altogether on 
the mercy of God, to receive the annunciation with all hu- 
mility and gratitude. Even in this case it would be most 
irrational to object to it. But when God has graciously 
permitted us to see, in part at least, the absolute neces- 
sity of atonement, and some of the important moral pur- 
poses answered by it, it is worse than foolish, it is the very 
perfection of rationalism, to find fault with this method of 
communicating pardon ; and to say that if we cannot be 
permitted to purchase our own pardon, instead of receiv- 
ing it as the free gift of God, through the redemption which 
is in Christ Jesus, we will not accept of it at all. Ko thing, 
I conceive, can more effectually or more justly subject a 
man to condemnation, than to say that he does not see the 
wisdom of the medium through which God is pleased to 
communicate the pardon of sin, and rather than ask for it 
through that medium, he will not accept of it at all. 

When it is said that God is willing to pardon us upon 
our repentance without any atonement, it is taken for 
granted that we can repent when we please. For if re- 
pentance be something entirely out of our power, then it 
can afford us no comfort to tell us, even if it were true, that 
repentance will purchase our pardon. For, besides that it 
seems just as difficult to perceive the connection between 
repentance and pardon, as to perceive the connection be- 
tween atonement and pardon, I know not that even the 
most determined rationalism has ever promulgated a 
tenet more clearly absurd, or more decidedly opposed to 
all experience, than the tenet that a man can repent of 
himself without being led to do so, and enableu to do so 



118 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



by the Holy Spirit. Many a sinner is, no doubt, soothing 
himself to peace by the promise of a future repentance. 
But he neither knows as yet what repentance is, nor his 
own need of repentance, else he would build himself up in 
no such foolish delusion. For what does the sinner do when 
he promises himself a future repentance? He just says, to- 
day nothing shall induce me to abstain from indulging 
every appetite and every desire, nothing shall lead me to 
think of God at all, or to think of him without dread and 
aversion ; nothing can make me delight to contemplate 
his perfections, or find any pleasure in drawing near to 
him : to-morrow I will sit down and mourn in the utmost 
anguish of spirit those indulgences from which nothing 
shall induce me to-day to abstain, and wish a thousand 
times that I had never yielded to them ; nothing shall give 
me such delight as the contemplation of these glorious per- 
fections which to-day I hate to think of ; and I shall ac- 
count nothing such a privilege as to draw near to that 
throne of grace before which nothing shall induce me to- 
day to bend the knee. This is exactly what the sinner 
says when he promises himself a future repentance. He 
promises that to-morrow he will hate with the most cor- 
dial detestation that to which to-day he clings with the 
most ardent affection. He who says, to-day I am bowed 
down with all the weight of threescore years and ten, but 
to-morrow I am resolved that I shall flourish in all the 
vigour of unbroken youth, forms a resolution quite as ra- 
tional, and quite as much within his power to accomplish, 
as he who says to-morrow I will repent. He who says I 
will make to myself a new heaven and a new earth, makes 
a promise just as much within his power to accomplish, as 
he who says I will make to myself a new heart and a new 
spirit. Eepentance and renovation are not sacrifices which 
we give to God as the price of our justification ; but gifts 
which God bestows upon us, and which God only can be- 
stow in consequence of our having been freely justified. 
That man has surely little reason to lay claim to the ap- 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



119 



pellation of rational, who goes so directly in the face of 
common sense and of all experience, as to teach the sinner 
that he is capable of repenting, and that repentance will 
purchase his pardon ; a tenet which, whether it be more 
deplorably absurd, or more fearfully fatal, I shall not take 
upon me to determine. He who is brought truly to see 
his need of repentance, neither fancies that he can repent 
of himself, nor defers to to-morrow his seeking of repent- 
ance from God. 

I have already noticed, and may notice again, the ob- 
jection which says, that the doctrine of atonement repre- 
sents God as a sanguinary and vengeful being, who, hav- 
ing once acquired a right to gratify his thirst of blood on 
the human race, refused to forego his claim till a nobler 
victim was offered in their stead. This objection, though 
often urged, and dwelt upon by the new theology, with 
many a pathetic and many a tragic exclamation, is pro- 
bably brought forward rather for the purpose of perplex- 
ing, than from any weight that even they who make it 
can suppose it to possess ; and were it not that as some 
are weak enough to make it, others may perhaps be weak 
enough to be influenced by it, it would be altogether un- 
worthy of any answer. They who make it know, or, at 
least, ought to know, that we who maintain the doctrine of 
atonement actually do not consider God as a sanguinary 
being any more than they do. On the contrary, we con- 
sider him as a God of love, and we consider the atonement 
as a proof of love so great that no language can do it jus- 
tice. Had he been of a sanguinary or cruel nature, he 
would not have provided a ransom for us, and, especially, 
such a ransom as the blood of his own well-beloved Son. 
It was the love of God that laid our help upon one that is 
mighty to save ; that gave up his Son to death for us ; 
that sustained him throughout the whole of his work of re- 
demption ; that " raised him up, and gave him glory, that 
our faith and our hope might be in God." He communi- 
cated pardon through atonement, not because he delights in 



120 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



blood, but because in no other way could it be communicat- 
ed without producing the most fatal consequences. They, 
therefore, who believe the atonement, when they see the 
absolute necessity of it, and the many important moral 
purposes answered by it, are very far, indeed, from consi- 
dering it as a proof of any thing vindictive in the divine 
character, but consider it as a proof of exactly the con- 
trary ; and are well disposed to adopt the language of the 
Apostle, that u it became him, for whom are all things, and 
by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, 
to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through suf- 
fering." 

But the grand objection to the doctrine of atonement is, 
that it is hostile to the interests of morality. It is said, 
that to tell a man that he is justified, not by his obedience 
to the law of God, but solely by the merits of our great 
High Priest, is to cut the very sinews of exertion ; to place 
a pillow beneath the head of the sluggard ; to spread a 
couch for the repose of indolence ; to take away the most 
powerful motives to diligence in doing good, and to sted- 
fastness in resisting temptation. It is very natural, say 
such objectors, for a man to reason thus — As my justifica- 
tion depends not at all on my own holiness, therefore, it is 
unnecessary for me to put myself to the pain and trouble 
of cultivating holiness. I need take no care, since I have 
a sufficient surety to answer for all my failures. That 
some men should be found who turn the grace of God into 
lasciviousness, is what any one acquainted with human 
nature would be prepared to expect ; — and that there are 
men who reason in this manner I am far from being dis- 
posed to deny. But the Gospel is not responsible for the 
errors of those who pervert it to their own destruction ; 
and did I conceive that the view of atonement held by the 
Church, and which I have endeavoured to state, afforded 
the slightest ground for such reasoning, or were m any 
way hostile to the interests of morality, I trust I should 
not be the last to renounce that view, however reluctantly. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



121 



For I conceive that no truth is more certain than that the 
promotion of holiness is the great end of all that Christ 
has done and suffered for us, — that to raise man from his 
state of moral weakness and degradation, and to lead him 
to the perfection of his moral nature, is the grand purpose, 
as far as we are concerned, for which the great plan of our 
redemption was devised and carried into execution. But 
the atonement is not only not hostile to this purpose, but 
furnishes the only means by which it can be accomplished. 
Indeed, the reasoning of those who say, that if our holiness 
do not justify us, it is therefore unnecessary, hardly needs a 
refutation ; since it involves two very obvious errors, viz. : 
that justification is all that is essentially necessary in our 
salvation, and, consequently, what does not promote that 
can be of no use, — and that the only adequate motive to 
the cultivation of holiness is the dread of condemnation ; 
since, if that be removed, there remains, it seems, no longer 
any motive to its cultivation. Now, if men will adopt rea- 
soning that involves such palpable errors, there does not 
appear to be a possibility of stating any doctrine, in terms 
so plain that they will not misunderstand it. If a man 
will make no exertion whatever, then, no doubt, a cobweb 
will bind him ; and surely he must be incapable of making 
any exertion who is bound by such a cobweb as this rea- 
soning ; and who does not see, that though our holiness 
does not, and cannot justify us, it may be essentially ne- 
cessary notwithstanding ; and that though the abyss of 
woe were shut up, and its fires extinguished, and the un- 
dying worm were dead, yet neither the number nor the in- 
fluence of the motives which urge the believer on to the 
cultivation of holiness would be in the slightest degree 
diminished. He who can adopt such a view of the doc- 
trine of atonement, as held by the Church, has little pre- 
tension to set himself up as an improver of received Chris- 
tianity, since it shows such a grossness of intellect, and 
such a destitution of moral feeling, as exhibits, if not to 
himself, at least to others, a powerful proof of the necessity 

F 



122 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



of having the understanding enlightened, and the heart re- 
newed from above. 

That the doctrine of atonement tends to diminish our 
veneration for the law of God, and to abate our dread of 
sin, can be supposed only by those who do not understand 
it. It will be granted that religion consists in regarding 
our Maker with all those feelings which his perfections are 
calculated to inspire ; or, as the sacred writers emphati- 
cally call it, having the " heart right with God." To be- 
lieve in the being of God is the first article in religion ; and 
to know his nature is the first step toward religious perfec- 
tion. Consequently, whatever tends most effectually to 
instruct us as to the character of God, and most deeply to 
impress upon our hearts a sense of his glorious perfections, 
must also most effectually tend to produce holiness, by im - 
pressing us with the deepest veneration and the warmest 
love for him who unites in his character all that is vene- 
rable, and all that is lovely. Now, which of the two has 
the clearest and most impressive view of the divine cha- 
racter, he who believes in the atonement, or he who con- 
siders it as unnecessary ? In the death of Christ, viewed as 
a sacrifice for sin, the one sees the holiness of God, and the 
" exceeding sinfulness of sin" so awfully displayed, that, 
were he asked if he knew of any thing that could display 
it more strongly, or convince him of it more deeply, he 
would reply that he could not form the most distant concep- 
tion of any thing that could display it in a manner half so 
striking, — that not even the destruction of the whole human 
race could, in so awful and impressive a manner, manifest 
the holiness of God, and the utter and inconceivable hate- 
fulness of sin, as the humiliation and death of the Son of 
God. He deeply feels the force of the exhortation which 
says, " Be ye holy, for I am holy ;" and he feels also the 
force of the reason given why we should pass the time of 
our sojourning here in fear, namely, that we " were not 
redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from 
our vain conversation, received by tradition from our 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



123 



fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
without blemish, and without spot." 1 In the death of 
Christ the other sees no such sacrifice, nor any manifesta- 
tion whatever of the holiness of God, or of the evil of sin ; 
and he would tell us that the Deluge, the destruction of 
Sodom, or the final perdition of any one human being, is, 
beyond all comparison, a much more awful proof of the 
hatefulness of sin than the death of Christ. Is it possible, 
then, that the latter can have as deep and impressive a 
view of the holiness of God as the former ; or have his 
heart so effectually aroused to a dread of sin and a sense 
of its malignity? Can he enter at all into the feelings 
which make even angels veil their faces with their wings, 
when they minister before the throne of God, and con- 
template his holiness ? or into the feelings of the people 
when they cried, u Who can stand before this holy Lord 
God ? " or into that sense of the meanness, and worthless- 
ness, and imperfection of the highest human excellence, 
when brought into comparison with that which is divine, 
which made Job exclaim, " Now mine eye seeth thee ; I 
abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes ? " It is alto- 
gether impossible. As far, then, as veneration for God 
and dread of sin enter into morality, so far the interests of 
morality are not injured, but inconceivably strengthened 
and promoted by the doctrine of atonement. 

Again, with regard to love to God, that important prin- 
ciple of morality, what can be so well calculated to awaken 
it as a belief of the doctrine of atonement? " We love 
him because he first loved us ;" and it is in the atonement 
that we witness the exhibition of a love ineffable and in- 
conceivable. He who, awakened to a sense of his guilt, 
has felt himself ready to sink under its insupportable weight, 
and has found safety and peace in the blood of the " Lamb 
that was slain," finds himself totally unable to express his 
sense of the mercy of God, in providing such a ransom for 



1 1 Peter I 16, 



124 



CHRIST OUR, PRIEST. 



his offending creatures. He feels it to be a love that pass- 
eth all understanding. It is in the very God against whom 
he has rebelled that he finds his help ; and a life devoted 
to his service is the necessary consequence of that supreme 
gratitude and affection which have been implanted in his 
heart. Who will love God most ? He who sees him pro- 
viding a way by which pardon may be granted, while we 
are placed in a situation in which pardon was so difficult, 
that without the shedding of blood there could be no remis- 
sion ? — or he who only considers him as pardoning, while 
there was no obstacle whatever to the granting of that 
pardon ? 

While, then, in the cross of Christ, all the perfections of 
God are clearly displayed, and every error into which we 
can fall with regard to his character is corrected ; while the 
holiness of God, his love to men, and the hatefulness of 
sin, are so awfully manifested, that foundation is laid upon 
which alone the principles of morality can ever be securely 
built. He who persuades himself that God is all mercy, 
and will never treat his creatures with severity, and thus 
encourages himself in his evil ways, will see in the cross a 
fearful proof, that unless we become new creatures in 
Christ Jesus, then u he that made us will have no mercy 
upon us, — he that formed us will show us no favour." 
And he, on the contrary, whom guilt has taught to look 
on God with terror and dismay, will have his slavish dread 
changed into filial veneration and love, when he sees God 
manifesting such love to the world as to give up his Son 
to death for its ransom. It is here that apparent incon- 
sistencies are reconciled, and apparent impossibilities are 
accomplished. The justice and truth of God are fully vin- 
dicated in the punishment of sin, while mercy triumphs in ■ 
the salvation of the sinner. It is here alone that God can 
be just and yet justify the sinner. Here the unalterable 
sanctity of the law is most impressively manifested, and 
every motive that either hope or fear can supply to urge 
us to the cultivation of holiness, is exhibited with the most 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



125 



resistless force. It is by habitually turning his eye to the 
cross, which exhibits at once the perfection of mercy and 
of judgment, which unites all that is awful with all that is 
encouraging in the character of God, that the Christian is 
impressed with a veneration, which the attending proofs of 
mercy prevent from degenerating into despondency and 
servile dread ; and with a confidence of love, which is pre- 
vented by the accompanying proofs of holiness and justice 
from swelling into a presumption, which might produce 
security and carelessness. 

And who treats the law of God with the greatest respect, 
— he who considers its claims as so limited that he is fully 
able to satisfy them ? — or he who considers it as so pure 
and so extensive, that he only looks forward to conformity 
to it as the completion of his salvation, and the perfection 
of his nature ? — he who considers every deed of righteous- 
ness which he performs as so much of the labour accom- 
plished, which is to purchase heaven for him, and for 
which he looks on God as his debtor ? — or he who considers 
it as a new step gained in his progress to perfection, and a 
new ground of gratitude to God ? In every view which can 
be taken of the subject, the law appears to be " made 
void," not by the man who sets it aside as the ground of 
justification, because he has so high an idea of its sanctity, 
that he considers justification, and all the blessings con- 
nected with it, as so many means adopted to produce con- 
formity to the law ; but by him who considers it only as a 
means for attaining a farther end ; and a means, too, which 
we are perfectly capable of employing. The end of the 
one is to be justified, and conformity to the law the means 
by which it is to be accomplished. The end of the other 
is to be renewed after the image of his Maker, in right- 
eousness and true holiness ; and justification is only one of 
the means by which that end is to be attained. The one 
obeys that he may be justified ; the other obeys because he 
has been justified. Much has been forgiven him ; therefore, 
he loveth much. Upon what possible ground, then, can he 



126 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



wlio denies the atonement, and thus subverts every moral 
principle, triumph over him who adopts it ? or talk 6i his 
regard for the interests of morality after he has degraded 
holiness from its lofty situation as the very end of our be- 
ing, the end for which we were created and redeemed, into 
the rank of a means for the attainment of some farther and 
more important object? or how can he pretend that he is 
exalting the dignity of human nature, who contends for the 
debasing doctrine, that if the dread of punishment be re- 
moved, there is no longer any sufficient motive to the cul- 
tivation of holiness ? 

It is, then, the first and most sacred duty that we owe 
to Christ as our Priest, to consider the pardon of our sins 
as resulting solely from his work as our Priest, — as freely 
granted antecedently to any holiness that we do or can 
possess, and, consequently, as being in no sense, and to no 
degree, the effect of that holiness. And this belief, so far 
from being hostile to the interests of morality, affords the 
only ground upon which the principles of morality can be 
securely built ; as it makes holiness not the means to some 
farther attainment, but the ultimate attainment, the final 
perfection of man ; and as it not only furnishes the only 
effectual means for the successful cultivation of holiness, — 
a consideration into which I am not called upon here to 
enter, — but sets before us motives for its cultivation of a 
more impressive urgency, than any thing else than we can 
conceive possibly could do. 

Another duty which we owe to Christ as our Priest is, 
to consider him as the only Priest through whom we can 
have access to God, or receive any blessing from him. 
While some who call themselves Christians deny that 
Christ is a Priest at all, or at least deny that he was so till 
after his resurrection, and thus, I conceive, plough up the 
very foundations of Christianity ; there are others who do 
the same thing as effectually, by maintaining that there 
are many priests under the Christian dispensation. By 
some professing Christians, the ministers of the Gospel are 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



127 



very commonly called priests. There would be a less 
glaring impropriety in calling them prophets or kings. 
There is no minister who has the slightest pretension to 
be called a priest . He can offer for the sinner no sacrifice, 
without which he can be no priest ; he can make no inter- 
cession for us farther than one man may do for another. 
That his intercessions are more likely to be available than 
those of another man, I am most ready to admit, on the 
ground that he is appointed by the great Head of the 
Church, the great High Priest of our profession, to perform 
this duty. But his intercession is totally different from 
that of Christ. He can intercede only through the medium 
of another intercessor ; his intercession is not necessarily 
and certainly successful, for he cannot so frame his pray- 
ers that they shall be certainly agreeable to the will of 
God, as his knowledge is limited ; and he can offer no sa- 
crifice which pledges the faithfulness and justice of God to 
grant whatever he may ask, as Christ has done. 

Christ hath, " by one offering, perfected for ever them 
that are sanctified," and if there can be no more offering 
for sin, then there can be no other priest. If the death of 
Christ was perfectly sufficient for our justification, then 
nothing needs to be added to it ; and if it were not per- 
fectly sufficient for that purpose, then it could not effect it 
in any degree ; for no idea can be more utterly absurd, — 
more totally unworthy of any serious refutation, than the 
supposition that our own righteousness will justify us as 
far as it goes, and that the righteousness of Christ will 
supply what is wanting in our own. He justifies us wholly, 
or he justifies us not at all. And our justification is com- 
plete and unalterable before we can have any acceptable 
communion with God, or can receive any spiritual blessing 
from him. For God can grant no such blessings to the 
man who stands to him in the relation of an impenitent 
and unpardoned rebel. And if we possess justification at 
all, we possess it with a completeness to which no addi- 
tion can be made ; for it is not a thing that admits of de~ 



128 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



grees. We must be perfectly justified, or we are not jus- 
tified at all. Holiness admits of all possible degrees, and 
our sanctification is gradual, and is made to depend con- 
siderably on our own diligence ; but our justification is as 
perfect at the first moment of our being quickened from our 
death in trespasses and sins, as it will be when openly de- 
clared before an assembled world of men and of angels ; and 
is no more derived from our own exertions, than the atone- 
ment of Christ was derived from them. One jman may 
very well be more perfectly sanctified than another ; but 
no one man can be more completely justified than another. 

Now, if that justification which admits of no degrees, 
which must be perfect, or exists not at all, which is equally 
possessed by all that possess it, be founded solely upon the 
atonement of our great High Priest, then it follows very 
clearly that there can be no other priest, and that the man 
who assumes the title of priest, or who professes to per- 
form the office of a priest, is guilty of the most daring in- 
vasion of the prerogative of Christ. In this respect the 
Church of Home is grievously guilty. But upon this sub- 
ject, where it would be easier to write a volume than a 
page, I am not called to enter. Without, however, looking 
to the errors of others, I would urge upon my reader very 
seriously to consider, whether an error of the same kind 
do not exist in his own heart. Self-righteousness is not so 
much a speculative error embraced by any particular 
Church, as a practical error derived from the depravity of 
the heart, whatsoever may be the creed believed. There < 
is always a tendency to substitute something in ourselves, 
in part at least, as the ground of that grace which can be 
derived from our great High Priest alone — a tendency 
which manifests itself in a great variety of ways. 

When the sinner becomes sensible of the danger of his 
state, and of his need of pardon, his first impulse naturally 
is, to recommend himself to the favour of God by the re- 
formation of his conduct. When he becomes sensible of 
the folly of this attempt, and of the impossibility of sue- 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



129 



cess ; when he becomes sensible that the pardon of sin 
could be purchased by the blood of Christ alone, that it 
has already been purchased by that blood, and cannot be 
purchased again, but must be sought only as the free gift 
of God, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus ; 
his next impulse is, that if he cannot recommend himself to 
the favour of God, but must seek it through the mediation 
of Christ, he must, at least, recommend himself to the fa- 
vour of Christ, and render himself worthy of his mediation 
before applying for it. He feels the weight of his sins to 
be so great, that he is altogether unworthy that Christ 
should at all interest himself in his favour, and imagines 
that he must remove, or at least diminish, that unworthi- 
ness, before he can venture to apply, or to hope for the 
mediation of Christ in his favour. Now, it is perfectly 
easy to show the folly of this notion, — to prove that we 
are no more capable of recommending ourselves to the 
mediation of Christ, than we are capable of recommending 
ourselves to the favour of God without it. That we can- 
not first repent and sanctify ourselves, and then carry them 
to Christ as the price of his mediation ; but must go to 
him destitute of these and of all spiritual good, that we 
may receive them from him ; and that nothing can be more 
irrational than to say that we will of ourselves take the 
first and most difficult steps in the work of our own salva- 
tion, and then having successfully begun that work our- 
selves, we will go to him to complete it : all this it is very 
easy to prove ; but unhappily against moral weakness and 
spiritual blindness, the clearest logic and the best-con- 
structed arguments avail nothing ; and most believers 
have probably experienced in some degree this manifesta- 
tion of a self-righteousness, which far other means than 
logic and argument are necessary to subdue. And he in 
whom it has been subdued, while, on looking back, he 
wonders that he ever could for a moment be influenced by 
such palpable delusions, at the same time feels that, had 
it not been for the operation of the Holy Spirit, the spell 

f2 



130 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



would have been unbroken still, and no force of reasoning 
would have availed to convince him of the error of what 
he now sees to be so utterly foolish and irrational. No- 
thing can well be simpler than the truth that our sins can 
be forgiven us only through the blood of Christ, — that 
through that blood God is perfectly ready to forgive them, 
— and that the more guilty we. are we have the less rea- 
son to delay our application, since not one spiritual gift can 
Ave receive till we be first forgiven. But simple as all this 
is, and clearly as it is stated in Scripture, so deeply rooted 
is the feeling of self- righteousness, so dark our hearts, and 
so averse to believe the love which God hath to us, and so 
little disposed to rely on the grace of our High Priest, that 
unless we be divinely taught these simple truths, we shall 
never learn them. " For what man knoweth the things of 
a man, save the spirit of man which is in him ? Even so 
the things of God knoweth none save the Spirit of God. 
Now, we have received, not the spirit of the world, but 
the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things 
that are freely given to us of God." "But the natural 
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, for they 
are foolishness unto him ; neither can he know them, be- 
cause they are spiritually discerned." 1 

One of the most insidious forms in which self-righteous- 
ness, and a distrust of our High Priest, manifests itself, is 
in that of an apparently holy dissatisfaction with our own 
works, and our own prayers, and our own services. Now, 
the Christian will never feel that he is entitled to look 
upon his own performances with aught of the feeling of 
self-complacency ; and even when he has done his duty, 
and has reason to feel satisfied that he has been enabled to 
do it, still he will also feel that it becomes him to say, that 
he is an unprofitable servant, and has done what it was his 
duty to do ; and, far from glorying before God, will admit 
that his best services require to be offered to God through 



1 1 Cor. ii. 11, 12, 14. 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



131 



the mediation of Christ in order to be accepted. To the 
Christian boasting is most effectually excluded ; for every 
attainment in righteousness that he makes, and every deed 
of righteousness that he does, so far from making God his 
debtor, is nothing more than a new favour conferred upon 
him through the atonement, and renders him so much more 
deeply a debtor to divine grace. But it sometimes happens 
that the Christian is so far from boasting of his services, 
that he goes as far wrong in an opposite direction, — as we 
are naturally more ready to overvalue than to undervalue 
ourselves ; this happens not often, it may be, but it does 
happen, and I have met with it. In this case the Christian, 
for I have never met this insidious form of self-righteous- 
ness, excepting in cases where the evidences of genuine 
faith were of the most decisive kind — so far from looking 
back upon his services with the satisfaction of thinking 
that he has been enabled to glorify God, looks upon them, 
not only with dissatisfaction, because they have not been 
so perfect as they might have been, but with a feeling of 
distress ; for he now sees distinctly how he could have ren- 
dered the service more perfect. He dwells upon the de- 
fects of his service, or upon some impropriety of motive 
that has mingled with his performance of it, till he looks 
upon it with pain instead of pleasure. Few things are 
more disgusting than the canting whine about the defects 
of their best services, which we not unfrequently hear from 
those who are only anxious to catch a compliment : and 
few things are more calculated to awaken our sympathy, 
than to see the truly humble Christian deploring that im- 
perfection of his best services, which nothing but the an- 
guish that it occasions him induces him to mention. This 
is one of the ways in which Satan attempts to destroy the 
peace, and retard the progress, of the established Christian. 
In this case, I have found the following mode of address 
effectual in removing the delusion, and restoring peace. I 
have said to the sufferer, 4 Your sorrows arise from your 
indulging a self-righteous spirit.' The charge is, of course, 



132 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



eagerly and conscientiously repelled. 6 But then,' I ask, 
1 do you expect that your services are to be accepted, and 
your prayers heard, only through the mediation of our 
great High Priest, or on account of their own intrinsic and 
faultless excellence ? ' the latter supposition is also ear- 
nestly repelled^ 4 Well, then, you expect that your de- 
sires and prayers can be accepted by God only through the 
mediation of our great High Priest ; but you suppose, at 
the same time, that his mediation is of so little efficacy, 
that it will procure no acceptance to your services and 
prayers, unless they in themselves possess that absolute 
perfection, which would enable you to look upon them with 
satisfaction, and to hope for their acceptance without any 
reference to his mediation at all.' This also is strongly 
denied. 4 Then you admit that if your services and pray- 
ers are conscientiously presented to God, through the me- 
diation of Christ, they will be accepted of him on the 
ground of that mediation, even though they possess no 
such intrinsic excellence and perfection as would make 
them acceptable without it ; and if, therefore, you are dis- 
tressed, because you can detect imperfections in them, you 
are clearly distrusting the sufficiency of the mediation of 
Christ.' This mode of reasoning appears to admit of no 
reply ; and I have found it successful in enabling the 
mourner to detect the source of his causeless sorrows, and 
to recover that peace which results from a simple and un- 
hesitating reliance upon our great High Priest, for the par- 
don of all our sins, and the acceptance of all our services. 

Another duty which we owe to our great High Priest is, 
to live up to our privileges ; and that both as it regards 
our advancement in the spiritual life, and our enjoyment 
of spiritual pleasure. The Christian life is essentially a 
progressive thing ; for if the Christian be not improving, 
he is degenerating ; if he be not going forward, he is 
backsliding. Nothing can be a greater mistake than the 
opinion which seems to be entertained by many, that when 
a man has once reason to think himself a Christian, no far- 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



133 



ther improvement in his character can be expected, or needs 
to be sought after ; — that there can be no reason why he 
should possess a stronger faith, or more lively hope, or a 
larger measure, or a more active exercise, of all Christian 
graces, when he is forty years of age than when he was 
thirty. He who entertains such a notion has abundant 
reason to doubt, whether he yet knows any thing about the 
Christian life. The Christian cannot be satisfied with his 
attainments in righteousness. He has felt the blessedness 
of being able to approach God as a Father, and of being 
delivered from the distressing and degrading bondage of 
sin, and of having u a conscience void of offence ;" and he 
will not, and cannot, be satisfied with any measure of that 
blessedness which he may attain. Every new attainment 
only communicates a warmer desire, and additional power, 
for making still further attainments. He comes to no pe- 
riod in his course, at which he will conceive he may safely 
stop, or at which, if he be animated by the genuine spirit 
of Christianity, he will feel disposed to stop. He looks for- 
ward to perfect conformity to the image of God, — to the 
complete extinction of that body of corruption which 
dwells in him, — to the consummation of holiness, as the 
final end of all his exertions, the ultimate aim of his being. 
And with all the glories of heaven in his view, and animated 
by that faith which is " the substance of things hoped for, 
the evidence of things not seen," he will consider every day 
lost which does not add to the treasures which it is the 
grand object of his life to lay up there, u where neither moth 
nor rust corrupt, nor thieves break through to steal." 

But among all the manifold and powerful motives that 
urge the Christian on in his course, the fact that his duty 
to his great High Priest imperiously requires a continual 
growth in grace, is fitted to operate with peculiar force, — 
u He died that he might redeem us from all our iniquities," 
and he entered into heaven — there to appear before God, 
in order to procure for us, and bestow upon us, all the grace 
and all the power necessary to enable us to make our path 



134 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



" as the shining light, which shineth more and more unto 
the perfect day." And while our Priest stands ready to 
procure for us all spiritual blessings and all heavenly gifts ; 
and feels himself honoured and gratified, the more largely 
that we draw upon him for those fruits of righteousness 
which are u to the praise of his grace how can we pretend 
to be his disciples at all, or with what feelings can we hope 
to meet him, if we can permit days, and months, and years 
to pass away, without even calling upon him at all, or call- 
ing upon him only in a feeble and formal manner, for the 
exercise of his sacerdotal office on our behalf ; and are 
living as if, so far as we are concerned, it were a matter of 
no consequence, whether Christ be, or be not, a Priest, — 
whether he do, or do not, possess the power of procuring for 
us every thing necessary to enable us to go on from grace 
to grace, and from strength to strength, till we appear per- 
fect before God in Zion. The Son of the Sovereign an- 
nounceth to the discovered and condemned rebel, that he 
possesses an influence which enables him to secure to the 
rebel, not only his Father's pardon, but such favour as will 
advance him from step to step, and from rank to rank, till 
he occupy a high and honourable place in the court of the 
King against whom he had rebelled ; and that he will, 
with delight, exercise that influence on his behalf, both be- 
cause he loves the rebel, and because every exercise of that 
influence manifests his own power, and adds to his own 
honour. Now, if the rebel never applies for the exercise 
of that influence in his behalf, if he act just as if no such 
offer had ever been made to him, who will believe him 
when he says, that he not only believes the announcement 
made to him, but receives it with all joy and gratitude, and 
glories in having such a Mediator ? Is it not plain, that 
through some fatal delusion, — some unaccountable infatua- 
tion, he in reality prefers his imprisonment, his chains, and 
his condemnation ? Or would it at all mend the matter for 
him to say, that though he was making no use of the pri- 
vilege offered him now, he was fully determined to avail 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



135 



himself of it hereafter ? Would not such a profession be 
still considered as amounting to absolute insanity ? And 
would not the rebel be justly held to be treating the offer- 
ed mediation with insult, and to be rendering his execu- 
tion both certain and unpitied ? 

Now, I need hardly say, that the conduct of this sup- 
posed rebel, is the v^ery description of the conduct of many 
who call themselves Christians. Our great High Priest 
stands before the throne of God ready to procure for, and 
bestow upon us, justification, adoption, and sanctifica- 
tion ; together with that assurance of God's love, peace of 
conscience, joy in the Holy Ghost, increase of grace, and 
perseverance therein to the end, which in this life do either 
accompany or flow from them ; and, finally, to make us 
perfectly blessed in the full, enjoyment of God to all eter- 
nity. Yet there are many of us who call ourselves 
Christians, and profess that we believe all this, and that 
the all-sufficiency of Christ is all our hope and all our de- 
sire, while in fact we are regarding all these blessings as 
something that we profess to hope that we shall some time 
or other obtain, but which we are, in the meantime, 
neither possessing, nor even seeking to obtain, as a present 
possession ; — nay, nor even seeming to be at all sensible, 
that as a present possession, they are at all to be either ob- 
tained or sought after. Salvation is looked upon as some- 
thing to be obtained and enjoyed in a future state, and to 
be seriously sought for, only when we can engage in world- 
ly concerns no longer ; not as something which it is the 
first concern of man to obtain, and the possession of which 
alone is able to carry us comfortably through all the duties 
and trials of life. This is exactly as if the rebel should 
say, that when actually brought to the scaffold, it would 
then be time enough to think of the effectual Mediator of- 
fered to him ; or as if the sick man should say, that he 
would enjoy his disease as long as possible, and then when 
death seemed inevitable, would apply to the physician who 
could, and who alone could, certainly heal him. Can this 



136 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



delay in seeking for salvation, and for all the blessings 
which attend it, be considered as any thing else than the 
most grievous insult to our High Priest ? And if the rebel 
or the sick man just mentioned would be considered as 
clearly insane, should they act in so absurd a manner when 
life is at stake ; upon what possible grounds can we con- 
sider those as less clearly chargeable with insanity, who 
act in this manner, when eternal life is in question ? "The 
children of this world are wiser in their generation than the 
children of light ;" and were it not that our hearts are de- 
praved, and our minds blinded, and our moral perceptions 
so blunted, and our moral judgments so perverted, that we 
call u evil good and good evil," it is utterly impossible that 
any man could ever be guilty of conduct with regard to 
the salvation of his immortal soul, which no man could be 
deemed sane who should follow with regard to his world- 
ly concerns. And will not every mouth be stopped before 
God, and every one be totally incapable of offering the 
slightest reason, why the vials of a righteous indignation 
should not be poured out upon us, when we have refused 
to seek a salvation which he so long waited to bestow up- 
on us ? " How shall we escape, if we neglect so great sal- 
vation ?" 

And how often is even the true Christian chargeable with 
living far below his privilege ! He not only believes in the 
efficacy of Christ's mediation, but has, in some measure, 
experienced that efficacy, and has been brought out of dark- 
ness into light, and made a partaker of the glorious liberty 
of the sons of God. But is he then always found rejoicing 
in the step which he has already gained, and animated by 
the experience of the past, pressing onward to new attain- 
ments, in the hope of still higher enjoyments ? With a 
power put into his hands to enable him ever to renew his 
strength, to mount up with wings as eagles, to run and not 
be weary, to walk and not faint ; is he always found ap- 
plying this power to the utmost, and rejoicing as a strong 
man to run his glorious race ? How often, on the contrary, 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



137 



does he seem to forget that he has a race to run, and a 
warfare to wage ! and, loitering amidst the occupations or 
the cares or the pleasures of life, to need the monitory re- 
buke, u Be watchful, and strengthen the things which re- 
main, that are ready to die ; for I have not found thy works 
perfect before God !" And can our High Priest fail to be 
offended, and his Holy Spirit grieved, when he sees the 
grace which he is so ready to give so little used, and so 
sparingly sought ? 

The Christian life ought to be, because Christ has amply 
provided the means by which it may be made, a life of ala- 
crity and joy. It is not more the privilege of the Christian, 
than it is a duty which he owes to his High Priest, to " re- 
joice always." " Woman, why weepest thou ?" were the 
first words of the nsen Saviour to Mary, and they seem to 
be generally applicable to the life of the Christian. He can 
look upon that rich field of privilege and of promise placed 
before him in the Bible, and can say that it is all his own. 
And where is the want that the blessed fruits of that field 
cannot supply, the distress which they cannot relieve, the 
wound that they cannot heal, the fear that they cannot 
quell, or the sorrow for which they do not furnish abund- 
ant consolation ? Where, then, is the cause for depression ? 
Friend of Jesus, why weepest thou ? If you have " an Ad- 
vocate with the Father," through whom your sins are all 
forgiven, and you are made a child of God ; and the Holy 
Ghost is given you as your sanctifier and comforter ; and 
you are assured of having Almighty power for your sup- 
port, and unerring wisdom for your guide, and heaven for 
your eternal home, what can overbalance or suppress the 
joy which naturally results from such privileges as these ? 
Trials we may, we must meet with ; but can these depress 
us, when we know that " our light affliction, which is but 
for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding, even 
an eternal weight of glory ?" If tried by bodily pain, we 
just feel more keenly the happiness of the hope, which an- 
ticipates the time when we shall have " a building of God, 



138 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. " 
Worldly losses will not overwhelm us, if we know that we 
are undoubted heirs of an u inheritance that is incorrup- 
tible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away." Friends may 
change ; but we will be comforted by the assurance, that 
in Christ we have a " brother born for adversity," nay, " a 
friend that sticketh closer than a brother." There rolls be- 
tween us and our Father's house, the deep and restless tide 
of this world's corruption, through which we must of neces- 
sity pass, and the deeper and still more dangerous tide of 
the corruptions of our hearts, and we are surrounded by 
enemies on every side ; and when we feel our own weak- 
ness, we may be ready to fear, lest we should one day fall 
by the hand of some of them. But every distressing fear 
is removed when we recollect, that we " shall not be 
tempted beyond what we are able to bear," and that, in 
point of fact, there is no limit to our power, for we u can 
do all things, through Christ strengthening us"," and that 
the life that is in us is the life of Christ, a life which no 
power can extinguish in any one of Christ's members, any 
more than it can extinguish it in our glorious Head. 

In every thing, therefore, does it become the Christian to 
give thanks, — even for those trials which call into exer- 
cise, and thus strengthen his graces 5 for though " no chas- 
tening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous : 
nevertheless, afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of 
righteousness to them which are exercised thereby." The 
Christian can, therefore, " glory in tribulation," well know- 
ing, that when he comes to the end of his course, and looks 
back on all his blessings, and on all his trials, when he 
sings of mercy, he will see reason to sing of judgment too. 
But when we drag on heavily, as if there were dishearten- 
ing difficulties to be met, and heavy penalties to be endur- 
ed at every step, we bring up an evil report upon the good 
land ; and make the world believe that we serve a harsh 
master, who demands much while he gives little ; and con- 
firm the too readily adopted notion, that religion is a dull 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



139 



and gloomy thing, the death of all pleasure, and the grave 
of all enjoyment. And if we go to the discharge of every 
duty, as if there were a " lion in the way," and go to meet 
trial and temptation with feelings like those with which 
Saul went from Endor to Gilboa, what but discomfiture 
can we expect, when we engage under the depressing in- 
fluence of anticipated defeat ? We are invited to come, and 
that even u with boldness, to the throne of grace." And 
why should we not do so ? If, indeed, we depended for ob- 
taining the petitions that we ask upon our own merits, and 
might ask nothing but what we deserve, then it would be 
useless to go to a throne of grace, or to take the name of 
God into our lips at all, since we have deserved only wrath. 
But if our petitions be founded on the merits of Christ, then 
we can ask nothing that he has not deserved, and nothing 
that, if it be really good for us, he is not willing to bestow. 
In this case, to come to God with fear and hesitation, to li- 
mit our petitions to small matters, because we feel that we 
have no claim to ask larger, or to make our own merits, in 
any degree, the measure of our acceptance, or to ask, as if 
God would grudge what he bestows, — in all this we are just 
dishonouring our great High Priest, and living far beneath 
the privileges which he bestows upon us. To consider re- 
ligion as being our business, but the world as the source 
from which we must draw our pleasures, — to approach God 
in prayer as a duty which it is right, and proper, and 
profitable to perform, but without any notion or feeling of 
its being a privilege which it is delightful to enjoy, — to 
come to him as a Judge, whose good will it is our interest 
to conciliate, without being able to look upon him as a 
Father, whose power, and riches, and kindness, it gives us 
pleasure to contemplate and celebrate, and whose approv- 
ing smile, the light of whose countenance, is a greater trea- 
sure than corn, and wine, and oil, — is to take a view of 
that communion to which God calleth us, and of the privi- 
leges which he has conferred upon us, that must greatly 
mar both our peace, and our progress in the Christian life. 



140 



CHRIST OUR PRIEST. 



While, therefore, every thing approaching to presumption, 
or to that affected familiarity with God, which some appear 
to mistake for filial confidence, is to be guarded against 
with the most sedulous care ; with equal care ought we to 
guard against that distrust of our High Priest, which makes 
us dread to exercise and to enjoy, with the most perfect 
confidence and freedom, the privileges which in Christ Jesus 
we possess. 



CHAPTEE IV. 



CHRIST OUR KING, 



I proceed now to the consideration of our Lord's regal 
office ; and here it will be seen that his death, and conse- 
quently his incarnation, was essentially necessary to the 
due discharge of his functions as a King. From all eter- 
nity he was Lord over all ; possessing, in common with 
the other persons of the Godhead, power to sustain and to 
bless his true worshippers, and to involve his enemies in 
destruction. But as Mediator, he was the Father's Ser- 
vant, and could have no kingdom which was not conferred 
upon him. And no kingdom could be conferred upon him 
which he did not gain ; nor could he be the Saviour of 
men without conquering men's foes ; nor could he be Lord 
of all things visible and invisible, for the purpose of effectu- 
ally securing the salvation of his people, without purchas- 
ing this dignity, by a full and faithful discharge of the 
duties imposed upon him, and undertaken by him in the 
covenant entered into between him and the Father. A 
kingdom was given to the Son by the Father ; a kingdom 
which he will continue to hold, until the mystery of re- 
demption be finished, when he shall again deliver up the 
kingdom, that Gocl may be " All in All." It is to this 
kingdom that we refer, when we speak of Christ as a King ; 
and not of that underived lordship, which, as God, he pos- 
sessed from all eternity; which could not be conferred 
upon him, and which cannot be taken away from him; 



142 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



which, had no beginning, and can have no end ; which ad- 
mits of no increase, of no diminution, and of no change. 
Of this kingdom we speak not. 

With regard to the Mediator's kingdom, we must first 
inquire how far it extends. The answer to this inquiry is, 
that his kingdom extends over all things visible and invi- 
sible, — over all the works of God, and is just as extensive 
as the dominion which he possesses as God. In confir- 
mation of this, I refer not to those texts of Scripture in 
which he is declared to be the Maker of all things, and 
consequently their possessor ; for nothing gives so strong 
a right to dominion, so plain a title to lordship, as creation ; 
because these texts refer to his absolute dominion as God. 
But I refer to the numerous passages in which it is de- 
clared that God hath committed to him all rule, and all 
authority, and all judgment, — that he hath " set him at his 
own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all prin- 
cipality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every 
name that is named, not only in this world, but also in 
that which is to come ; and hath put all' things under his 
feet, and given him to be the head over all things to the 
Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all 
in all ; ni -~ that " God hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name which is above every name ; that at the name 
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and 
things in earth, and things under the earth ; and that every 
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the 
glory of God the Father." 2 

The possession of this universal dominion is plainly ne- 
cessary to the Mediator. For if there exist in the universe 
some power or influence which he cannot control and di- 
rect at his pleasure, then it is clear that he can give us no 
absolute assurance of salvation ; because that power may 
become adverse to our salvation, and Christ being unable 
to control and direct it, having no dominion over it, can- 



1 Ephesians i. 20. 



2 Philippians ii. 10. 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



not accomplish his gracious design toward us. The pos- 
session then of all power and authority, over all things 
visible and invisible, must, of plain necessity, be in the 
Saviour. We are held in bondage by the " god of this 
world," and are opposed by all the powers of a fallen world, 
by temptations from without, and by corruption within, — 
we contend not merely with flesh and blood, but u with 
principalities and powers, with the rulers of the darkness 
of this world, and with spiritual wickednesses in high 
places." Now, if our Saviour possesses not the most un- 
limited dominion over all these, he plainly cannot accom- 
plish our salvation. 

It is plain, too, that this universal dominion must have 
been conferred upon him, and must have been exercised by 
him from the moment when man first became dependant 
upon a Mediator. For if he saved men from the beginning, 
then from the beginning was he universal King. But this 
seems to be in direct opposition to those texts of Scripture, 
— and they are neither few nor of doubtful import, — which 
represent the conferring of dominion upon him, as the re- 
ward of his obedience unto death. These texts, however, 
do not contradict, but perfectly harmonize with the asser- 
tion, that Christ as Mediator possessed and exercised uni- 
versal dominion, long before his death or his incarnation. 
In order to show the perfect agreement of these texts with 
this assertion, I would remark that there never was any 
other Saviour besides the Lord Jesus Christ ; and that he 
never saved sinners through any other method than by 
atonement. Abel and the primitive saints were saved 
only in consequence of the death of Christ ; and yet they 
were saved, long before he actually accomplished his de- 
cease at Jerusalem. They were washed from their sins in 
his blood ; yet the washing was effected long before his 
blood was shed. To suppose that they were saved with- 
out the mediation of Christ, is to suppose that that media- 
tion was altogether unnecessary. Without the shedding 
of blood there is no remission of sin. But sin was remitted, 



144 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



and remitted only in consequence of the shedding of a 
Saviour's blood, and yet remitted long before the shedding 
actually took place. Again, the gift of the Holy Ghost is 
one of the fruits of Christ's death and intercession. Thus 
at one period we read that " the Holy Ghost was not yet 
given, because Christ was not yet glorified," and our Lord 
himself, showing the necessity of his death, says, u Never- 
theless, I tell you the truth ; it is expedient for you that I 
go away ; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not 
come unto you ; but if I depart, I will send him unto you." 
But had the Holy Ghost never been given before the death 
of Christ actually took place ? Yes, often, both in his mi- 
raculous and in his saving efficacy. Yet it is not the less 
true that the Holy Ghost never could by any possibility 
be given, except as the fruit of Christ's death. From these 
instances we may see how the universal dominion of the 
Mediator was conferred upon him in consequence of his 
becoming obedient unto death, and was yet enjoyed and 
exercised by him long before that death actually took place. 
From the moment that he undertook to obey unto death, 
from that moment did he receive power to confer all the 
benefits of his death, and from that moment men were 
made partakers of the salvation which is in him. Had 
there been a possibility that he might fail in his engage- 
ment, — that his sufferings might overcome his resolution, 
or overtask his ability, then no pardon could have been 
given, no sanctification conferred, and no blessedness be- 
stowed, until he had actually died, and thus fairly proved 
that failure was no longer possible, nor to be feared. 

But there was also a real exaltation of Christ after his 
death, and in consequence of his death, in that humanity, 
which, having no existence previous to his Incarnation, 
could not possibly have any participation in that dominion 
which belongs to the Mediator. But that exaltation of 
Christ, after his death, was not the conferring upon him of 
any new power or glory which he did not previously pos- 
sess. It was an open manifestation of that glory which he 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



145 



had from the beginning, — an open declaration of that which 
was not previously known. Appearing in the flesh, his 
condition was one of lowliness and humiliation. His glory 
was but partially known. But his assumption of human- 
ity was not a limitation of his Divinity ; and after per- 
forming his appointed work, he was in that humanity 
publicly and openly in the presence of his Apostles re- 
ceived up on high. But this exaltation was no conferring 
upon him of that which he did not previously possess. It 
was giving him the same glory in a new condition. But 
the glory was the same, as he himself declares — " And no 
man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down 
from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven ;' u 
and again, " What and if ye shall see the Son of Man as- 
cend up where he was before ?" 2 And when he prayed that 
he might be openly glorified, he prayed for no new acces- 
sion of glory which he had not previously possessed, but 
that, in his humanity, he might possess that same glory 
that he possessed before his Incarnation.— " And now, O 
Father, glorify thou me with thine own self, with the 
glory which I had with thee before the world was." 3 

In his exaltation, therefore, he received no new power 
which he had not exercised long before. But its exercise 
was founded on his death ; and after that death had ac- 
tually occurred, then was he exalted in his humanity, and 
his exaltation was then openly declared and manifested to 
the world, and the condition upon which it depended was 
shown to have been satisfactorily accomplished. As the 
king can and does exercise all the functions of royalty pre- 
vious to that solemn coronation which formally invests 
him with these functions, even so our Divine King dis- 
charged all the duties of his office, long before that assump- 
tion of humanity, and obedience unto death, which form- 
ed the ground upon which he received, and was the open 
declaration that he had received, the kingdom. 

1 John iii 13. * j 0 j m v ^ g2. 3 John xvii. 5, 

G 



146 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



That Christ was a King from the beginning may there* 
foi e be considered as proved. This, however, forms one of 
the most important points in discussing the question as to 
the sinfulness of his humanity, and therefore calls for a 
more minute and extended proof. It will, however, be 
better given, after shortly noticing the titles by which he 
holds his kingdom. He holds his kingdom by the Father's 
gift, as has been already observed. Of this I need pro- 
duce no proof whatever, both as it must be perfectly 
familiar to all readers of the Bible, and because I know not 
that it is doubted or denied by any who acknowledge that 
he is a King. He holds the kingdom also by the title of 
conquest. Mankind were the slaves of Satan, who had 
brought them into a bondage from which no human being 
was ever found who could emancipate himself. Christ 
became man, and conquered him, and, ascending up on 
high, led captivity captive. Satan, therefore, is the " god of 
this world" no longer. We may continue to obey him, 
and yield to his suggestions, and promote his designs, and 
reject Christ if we will. We are not, however, the less the 
subjects of Christ. The Master whom we serve is Christ's 
vassal, and we are as completely dependent upon him as 
his most devoted worshipper. When as man he reduced 
Satan beneath his power, he reduced at the same time 
beneath his power all the subjects of Satan. And this I 
conceive to be a sufficient answer, besides other answers 
that may be given to the question put to us by the new 
theology, in support of the doctrine of universal redemp- 
tion, — " If Christ did not redeem all, what right can he have 
to judge the unbeliever, whom he did not die to redeem ?" 
The question, though triumphantly asked, is silly enough, 
and is nearly similar to another. Our Lord says of be- 
lievers, " Thine they were, and thou gavest them me," 
Hence it may be asked, what right has he to sit in judg- 
ment upon those who were never given to him ? I would 
reply, that in one sense, even the impenitent were given 
to him. though not in the sense used by our Lord in the 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



147 



above expression ; but it is a sufficient reply to both ques- 
tions, that our Lord holds his kingdom not merely by gift, 
— a gift that in one sense includes all mankind — but also 
by conquest. And becoming, as Man, Lord of the sinner's 
master, he becomes Lord of the sinner too. 

He holds his kingdom also by purchase. This, in these 
days, is a very obnoxious expression. There is, however, 
no help for it, as the matter is undeniably true. He pur- 
chased us not from Satan ; but took us as a prey from the 
mighty, and as captives from the strong. But we were 
held fast also by the law of God, bound down to punishment 
by his truth and justice. These could not be conquered ; 
nor, excepting by fallen sinful beings, could they be op- 
posed. Christ could not, by any exercise of power, wring 
us out of the hands of the law, nor could he at all exercise 
any power in opposition to it. He fully admitted all its 
demands. He made no attempt whatever to abate the 
slightest iota of them ; but, acknowledging, nay, proclaim- 
ing the justice of its claims, he satisfied these claims to the 
full, — endured its penalty, — paid all its demands, and, by 
purchase, set its victims free. The whole of its rights, 
therefore, were fully transferred to him, to bind or to loose, 
to remit or to retain men's sins, as he should see good* 

It was necessary to prove that Christ actually exercised 
all the functions of the priesthood while he was on earth, 
because the tenet that he was not anointed to the priest- 
hood until his resurrection from the dead, which has long 
been one of the leading tenets of Socinianism, and is now 
maintained by a different class of theologians, is an effec- 
tual denial of the atonement. For if he was not truly and 
properly a Priest when he died, then it is clear that his 
death could be no atonement. For a similar reason, it is 
necessary to enter a little more largely into the proof that 
he was a King from the beginning ; for this is also denied, 
and it is maintained by some that he was anointed as a 
King only at his resurrection, and by others that he is not 
anointed to that office yet ; and this doctrine, as will be 



148 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



seen by and by, is quite as effectual a denial of the atone- 
ment. In proof, then, that Christ was a King from the 
beginning, I would refer to Psalm ii. It may, indeed, be 
said, and truly said, that that Psalm is a prophecy which 
yet remains to be fulfilled. But that it refers to the past, 
as well as the future, may, I think, be very decisively 
proved. Into that proof, however, I need not here enter, 
both because satisfaction upon that point may probably be 
met with in any commentary, and because I have abundant 
proof of my proposition, even if the argument from that 
Psalm should be held to be disputable. 

I would refer also to Psalm xlv. There the prophetic 
character of Christ is first spoken of, when it is said, 
u Grace is poured into thy lips; therefore, God hath blessed 
thee for ever and then follows this splendid description 
of his regal power and authority, " Gird thy sword upon 
thy thigh, O Most Mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. 
And in thy majesty ride prosperously, because of truth, 
and meekness, and righteousness ; and thy right hand shall 
teach thee terrible things. Thine arrows are sharp in the 
heart of the King's enemies ; whereby the people fall under 
thee. Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; the sceptre 
of thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteous- 
ness, and hatest wickedness ; therefore, God, thy God, hath 
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. w 
In Psalm xxii. also, his prophetic and royal characters are 
so blended, as to render it impossible to suppose that the 
one of these could commence at one period, and the other 
at another. In Psalm ex. his regal character is, in the 
same way, combined with his priesthood, leading irresisti- 
bly to the conclusion, that all these characters he adopted, 
that to all these oflices was he anointed at one and the 
same time. Indeed, a perfectly conclusive proof of this, to 
all who have not pledged themselves to the support of some 
hypothesis with which it is inconsistent, would, I should 
think, be found in the fact, that he saved men from the 
beginning; and surely he could save no man without 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



149 



being Prophet, Priest, and King. At least, if he could 
save men while destitute of any of the powers of any of 
these offices at one time, I can see no reason why he should 
not be capable of doing the same thing at another time, 
and at all times, nor, consequently, why he should assume 
at all any office which was not necessary to enable him to 
save sinners. 

The prophet Daniel has determined an appointed time 
u to anoint the Most Holy;" but he has taken no notice 
whatever of a variety of anointings at very different times. 
But if Christ was in reality to be anointed at very differ- 
ent times, and for different purposes, then the statement 
of the prophet, with regard to a time appointed for anoint- 
ing him, is not merely defective, but has a strong tendency 
to mislead. 

That Christ was a King at his coming into the world is 
proved by the fact, that the first specific character under 
which he is presented to us in the New Testament is that 
of a King. " Now, when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of 
Judea, in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came 
wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he 
that is born King of the Jews ?" Now, when these men 
were led by the Holy Spirit from a far country to proclaim 
the birth of this King, and when they must have come to 
worship him, not merely as King of the Jews, a person in 
whom they could have no concern, but as that generally- 
expected King, who, arising in Judea, was to obtain the 
dominion of the world, who was to be the u Salvation of 
God to all the ends of the earth," — " a light to lighten the 
Gentiles, as well as the glory of Israel," — a King, the ex- 
pectation of whose coming was so general, that the flatter- 
ers of Vespasian professed to find the fulfilment of the 
prophecy in him ; upon what possible ground can it be ra- 
tionally maintained that the person so distinctly announ- 
ced as the long-promised King, was in reality at that time 
no king at all, nor to be made a king till after his death ? 
He was revealed to, and distinctly announced by, the wise 



150 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



men as a King ; and I cannot conceive how any man can 
deny this statement, and maintain that Christ was no 
King till after his death, or that he is no King even yet, 
without seeing that he is as flatly as possible contradicting 
the Bible. Nothing can be more clear than that Jesns is 
at his birth designated a King. If, then, he in reality was 
not a King, the conclusion is unavoidable that the Scrip- 
ture statement is not true. 

Again, when our Saviour entered into the temple, which 
the Jews were making a house of merchandise, and when, 
i; Having made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all 
out of the temple, and the sheep and the oxen ; and poured 
out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables ; and 
said unto them that sold doves, Take these things hence ; 
make not my Father's house a house of merchandise," he 
was surely, in thus purging the temple, not only assuming 
to himself both a sacerdotal and royal prerogative, but was 
giving a most unequivocal manifestation of his royal autho- 
rity. For who is this who not only utters so unpleasant a 
command, but who so imperiously compels an instantane- 
ous obedience to it ? Is this the carpenter's son, the de- 
spised Nazarene, the obscure peasant from the polluted 
land of Galilee of the Gentiles ? Assuredly no. Had he 
appeared in the temple under no other character than this, 
and attempted such a purgation of it, he would at once 
have been stoned to death, or torn in pieces. It is plain 
that they who thus submitted to be driven from the temple, 
which they had converted into a house of merchandise, who 
even saw their money poured out without daring to resist, 
must have beheld in him who thus drove them away, the 
unequivocal manifestation of a majesty that was not to be 
opposed, — of a regal authority and power that might not 
for a moment brook resistance. He was at that time 
claiming to himself the honour and the submission due to 
a king, and as assuredly and as fully possessed that cha- 
racter then, as he does now or ever will do. 

All the prophets describe Christ as a King. Their tes- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



151 



timony, however, I shall not quote, because it might be 
alleged — especially considering the mode of interpreting 
prophecy now adopted, or rather the mode of rambling 
through it in a style that bids defiance to all interpretation 
— that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled. One, 
however, with regard to which no such allegation can be 
made, I shall quote. u Rejoice greatly, O daughter of 
Zion : shout, O daughter of Jerusalem : behold, thy King 
cometh unto thee : he is just, and having salvation ; lowly, 
and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an 
ass." 1 Here it is most distinctly declared that Christ 
should come as a King ; and the prediction was fulfilled to 
the very letter, when, at the triumphant entrance of our 
Lord into Jerusalem, "The whole multitude of the dis- 
ciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice, 
for all the mighty works that they had seen, saying, Bless- 
ed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord ; 
peace in heaven, and glory in the highest." Now, the 
evangelists do expressly declare that, by this entrance of 
our Lord into Jerusalem, the prophecy of Zechariah was 
fulfilled. If, then, Christ was no King at that time, the 
plain consequence is, that the evangelists were mistaken. 
And can any man then deny that Christ was a King, and 
yet pretend to reverence the Scriptures ? Moreover, when 
the Pharisees were offended at the open declaration made 
by the disciples that Christ was Messiah the King, and de- 
sired him to rebuke them ; so far was he from complying 
with their request, and repressing the voices that hailed 
him as the long-promised King, that " He answered and 
said unto them, I tell you that if these should hold their 
peace, the stones would immediately cry out ;" thus de- 
claring it to be a matter of the most absolute necessity that 
he should be openly announced as King. Indeed, had there 
been any one of his offices in which he did not distinctly 
announce himself to the Jews, then, so far, had they been 



1 Zecli. ix. 9. 



152 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



guiltless, they could not be charged with the guilt of re- 
jecting that which was never offered to them. 

That Christ was distinctly announced to the Jews as a 
King is certain, not only from the fulfilment of the pro- 
phecy just quoted, but from the terms in which they ac- 
cused him to Pilate, — " We found this fellow perverting 
the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, say- 
ing that he himself is Christ a King." And was he, who 
thus distinctly announced himself to the Jews as the long- 
expected King, whom their eyes were almost failing with 
looking for, — who was acknowledged by Nathanael, and 
hailed by the multitude as " King of Israel," — who was 
accused by the priests of this very thing, that he declared 
himself to be a King, — and who distinctly acknowledged 
himself before Pilate to be a King, whose kingdom was not 
of this world ; was he, after all, no King in reality, but 
only a King in expectance ? And are we to suppose that it 
was without the providence of God, and without the dic- 
tation of his Holy Spirit, that Pilate wrote, and, though 
entreated by the offended Jews, refused to alter that inscrip- 
tion, which officially, and more truly than Pilate knew, de- 
clared that he who was suspended on the cross was " King 
of the Jews ? " In short, if the proofs given us in Scripture 
that Christ was a King when he was on earth, still leaves 
that matter doubtful, nay, if, in the face of all that proof, 
we are to believe that in reality he was no King, then we 
may at once set aside the Scriptures altogether. They are 
totally incompetent to establish any fact ; for there is no 
fact that they more clearly and decidedly teach than that 
Christ was a King. 

But Christ came not only as King of the Jews, but he came 
that in man's nature he might overthrow man's foes, might 
spoil the spoiler, divest Satan of his long-usurped dominion, 
enter into the strong man's house, bind him, and take from 
him his goods, and cast out the prince of this world. He 
came as a King, that he might meet and conquer him who 
had become the king of this world, and for this reason the 



CHRIST OUR KING. 153 

contest was carried on in such a way as to render the con- 
quest of Christ, and the fall of Satan as lightning from 
heaven, perfectly manifest to all. I might refer in proof 
of this to what is related by different authors with regard 
to the silencing of the heathen oracles. Thus we are told 
by Nicephorus, Lib. i. cap. 17, that when the Roman em- 
peror consulted the oracle of Apollo with a double heca- 
tomb, he received for answer, u A Hebrew child, a God 
who rules the gods themselves, has commanded me to de- 
part and to return to my dreary home. Henceforth, there- 
fore, let the suppliant retire unanswered from my altars." 
I prefer, however, confining myself to what is related in 
Scripture. One of the most prominent facts recorded in 
the Gospels is, that Satan was, about the time of our Lord's 
appearance, permitted to take possession of men in a very 
extraordinary manner, thus openly manifesting and exer- 
cising his power over them in a way which they were 
plainly incapable of resisting ; and a great proportion of 
our Saviour's miracles consisted in casting out devils. 
Now, all the different hypotheses that have been resorted 
to for the purpose of accounting for the possession of the 
demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel, I hold to be just so 
many expedients for evading the plain and palpable state- 
ments of Scripture. Having but little reverence for the 
learned arts, by which the obvious meaning of Scripture is 
refined into something too sublime for vulgar apprehen- 
sion, I conceive the demoniacs mentioned in the Gospel, 
just to have been persons possessed by Satan, who was 
thus permitted to exercise an unusual degree of power, 
both that it might not be thought that the woman's seed 
assailed him at a time when his power was either more re- 
strained, or less energetically exercised than usual, and that 
his defeat and Christ's superiority might be more clearly 
manifested to all. This view of the matter our Lord him- 
self teaches us to take. When the seventy returned again 
to him rejoicing, that through his name even devils were 
subject to them, his remark upon their communication is, 

g2 



154 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



" I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven." Yes, the 
devils knew him to be the " Holy One of God," they 
trembled at his name, they shunned his presence, they fled 
his approach, they offered no resistance to his commands, 
but, to the utter astonishment of the people, showed their 
complete subjection to him ; thus proclaiming with their 
own mouths the fall of Satan from his seat of usurped 
power, and the complete victory of him who proved himself 
to be his long-expected conqueror by this, that the people 
from what their own eyes saw could say, " What thing 
is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority 
commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey 
him." They did obey him, and in many cases openly con- 
fessed who he was ; and we wonder at, and mourn over, the 
hardness of their hearts, who could look upon the manifest 
victory of Christ, and his resistless destroying of the works 
of the devil, and yet could refuse to believe ; while we our- 
selves can look upon the same thing, and yet coolly deny, 
that, when he conquered Satan, he was a King at all. 

When man was made, there was given to him " domi- 
nion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, 
and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." 
By his fall, man in a great measure became divested of that 
dominion. But our Lord, as an unf alien man, possessed 
all that dominion which fallen man had lost ; as is plainly 
declared in Psalm viii. ; and is amply proved by the record 
of his life. But not only as an unfallen man did he pos- 
sess all the dominion over the inferior creatures, which was 
lost by the fall ; but angels ministered to him, devils were 
subject to him, the elements of nature obeyed him, death 
gave up his prey at his command, and yet he was no King. 
Can the power and influence of theory be more fatally 
manifested than in them who maintain this ? Some of the 
people said, u When Christ cometh, will he do more mira- 
cles than this man doeth ?" So would I say, when he is 
anointed a King, will he do any thing of a more decidedly 
regal character than he did when he was on earth ? Will 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



155 



he do more than rule over the material and spiritual world, 
— over that which is fallen, and that which never fell, — 
over the dominion of Satan and the power of death ? That 
his power will be more visibly exercised, and more exten- 
sively manifested, I most willingly grant ; that it will, or 
can be more really exercised, or more truly manifested, I 
am inclined to think impossible. 

During his life the devils had no power over our Lord, 
but their defeat was made manifest by the resistless autho- 
rity with which he issued his commands to them ; so that 
they could assail him only through the instrumentality of 
wicked men. But the hour of their power did come, — the 
hour when the soul of Jesus began to be " amazed and 
very heavy," words which fall far short, indeed, of the 
energy of the original, as the original, and all other lan- 
guage, must fall far short of expressing, hi an adequate 
manner, all the fearfulness of that amazement and horror 
which then seized him. The hour did come which made 
him cry out, " Now is my soul troubled ; and what shall I 
say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for this cause 
came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name." Now, 
what was it that made the prospect of this hour so terrible 
to Jesus ? Was it the mere dread of death ? The supposi- 
tion is totally inconsistent with the whole of his conduct 
and character ; and no less inconsistent with the fact, that 
he knew well that death had no power over him whatever, 
farther than he himself was pleased to allow. Many of his 
disciples have endured the cross, and submitted to the most 
cruel tortures ; and even women and children have suffer- 
ed all these tortures without a groan. And did Jesus look 
on the mere pain of dying, with more than all the terror, 
and cling to a troubled life with more than all the weak- 
ness of mortal man ? No. It was not dying that he dread- 
ed, but the fearful conflict by which his death was to be 
preceded. The powers of darkness were all let loose upon 
him, to assail him with their utmost force. A broken law 
came to demand of him the restitution of its violated bo- 



156 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



nour, and to inflict upon him the curse due to its violation. 
And was it only a part of its demands that it then insisted 
upon ? No, it came armed with all the authority of inflexi- 
ble justice, and not one iota of what that justice entitled it 
to claim was remitted. " The Lord laid on him the ini- 
quities of us all," and he " bare them in his own body on 
the tree :" and he bare them not in outward seeming mere- 
ly, without in reality feeling all their final consequences. 
And the amazement and sorrow that these consequences 
inflicted upon him, he himself could not express, and we 
cannot conceive. For if, when the sinner is first awaken- 
ed to a sense of his guilt, or when the backslider begins to 
be filled with the fruits of his own ways, — when conscience 
is setting all his sins in array before him, and the law is 
stamping all the bitterness of its curse upon every one of 
them, thus filling his heart with terrors that can find ex- 
pression only in groanings unutterable, and more fearful 
by far than the terrors of death ; — if the guilt of one indi- 
vidual can thus fill the heart of that individual with such 
anguish and such agony, who may venture to form any es- 
timate of the agony endured by Christ when he made his 
soul an offering for sin, — when the deceit of Jacob, the 
adultery and murder of David, the denial of Peter, and the 
persecutions of Paul,— when the sins of an apostate world 
were collected into one dark mass, and its whole burden 
laid upon him ? The law, inexorable as the stony tablets 
on which it was engraved, was there, setting all the sins by 
which a guilty world had been polluted, and its sanctity 
violated, in array before him, filling his soul with all their 
terrors, and exacting from him the penalty due to them all. 
And death was there, armed with a power, and clothed 
with terrors, with which he never before or since assailed 
living being. It is sin that forms the sting of death, and 
invests him with all his powers. And if his assaults be ter- 
rible to every individual of us, on account of our own indi- 
vidual sins, — and if he be terrible to us often, even when 
we know that these sins are all forgiven, who may esti- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



157 



mate the power and the terror with which he assailed our 
Lord, when armed with the power, and invested with the 
terrors, not of the sins of an individual, but of those of a 
lost world ? And he who had the power of death, even 
Satan, was there, with all his powers unfettered and unre- 
strained, to try what they might avail against the " second 
man," in the hour of his sorest travail. An;!, the prince of 
the power of the air spread darkness over all the land, and 
made the earth to quake in the mightiness of his efforts. 
But these were only faint and feeble shadows of the dark- 
ness and commotion which were raised in the soul of the 
sufferer in that hour of his dismal conflict, when his power 
to accomplish the original promise was put to its last fear- 
ful trial ; when he fully realized the hope which fallen man 
had long been given to cherish, that we should be deliver- 
ed from our bondage, and raised from our fallen and sinful 
state, by a suffering conqueror. 

Xow, had there been, in any department of Christ's per- 
son, any thing to which the terms fallen, sinful, rebellious, 
could, with the most distant approach to truth or justice, 
be applied, was his escape from this hour of the power of 
darkness a thing within the bounds of possibility ? Had 
the law found in him the slightest taint of sinfulness, to 
which it might attach the curse due to its violation, it 
would have held him fast in its adamantine chain, as a 
debtor on his own account ; and never would he have been 
able to rescue himself, much less us, from its inexorable 
grasp. Had death, and he who had the power of death, 
found the slightest ground in which the sting of death could 
be planted, then, assuredly, had death had forcible domi- 
nion over him, and the blackness of that darkness which was 
around him, and within him, in the garden and on the 
cross, had been his portion for ever. But he endured their 
utmost rage, deeply tried, tried with a trial beyond aught 
that mortal man may ever comprehend, yet unsubdued, and 
unsubdued just because there was in him nothing fallen or 
sinful He endured till the law had no farther claim, till 



158 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



the powers of darkness fled, their utmost efforts defeated 
and baffled, and with them passed away the darkness from 
the land, and from the soul of the victorious and triumph- 
ant sufferer, and Satan saw that his long usurped dominion 
over the world was now utterly and hopelessly broken. He 
endured till he could say, "It is finished," till " having spoil- 
ed principalities and powers, he made a show of them open- 
ly, triumphing over them in his cross." He endured till the 
agony which wrung from him the bitter complaint of being 
forsaken was past, and holy peace and joy returned, with 
the light of his Father's countenance, to his soul, from 
which they had for a time withdrawn ; and then having 
openly shown that the prince of this world had nothing in 
him, he freely and voluntarily gave a life which was still 
his own, to give or to keep, for the life of a lost world. 
Fearful was the conflict that he sustained during the hour 
of the " power of darkness," but happy and glorious was 
the result, and splendid and blessed was the victory in 
which his sufferings terminated, and most royally triumph- 
ant was his death. 

From these remarks, as to the regal character of Christ's 
death, the inference is very fairly deducible, that his death, 
even up to the last moment of his mortal existence, was per- 
fectly voluntary, — that at that moment, whether he would, 
or would not, die, was a thing so completely within his 
power to determine, as, previous to his Incarnation, it was 
within his power to determine, whether he would or would 
not become man. But this is a point of by far too much 
importance to be left without more direct and abundant 
evidence : for the decision of this question will very effec- 
tually decide the question, whether our Lord's humanity 
was fallen and sinful ; and I may add, that it will also de- 
cide, whether his death was an atonement or not. They 
who maintain that the humanity of Christ was fallen sin- 
ful humanity, also maintain, — as of plain necessity they 
must, — that he died by the common property of flesh to 
die, because it was accursed in the loins of our first parents, 



CHRIST OUR KIXG. 



159 



— that he died just for the same reason that other men die, 
that he was just as incapable of shunning or resisting death, 
as any of the fallen race of Adam. And if he was fallen 
and sinful, this conclusion there is no avoiding. If, then, 
it can be shown that death had no power over him, that 
he died because he pleased so to do, when he pleased, and 
how he pleased, 1 then is it also decisively shown that he 
was not fallen and sinful. 

In support of the position that Christ was not subject to 
death, but that he laid down his life of his own accord, I 
quote his own express declaration to that purpose, — 
" Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down 
my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from 
me, but I lay it down of myself ; I have power to lay it 
down, and I have power to take it again. This command- 
ment have I received of my Father." 2 Nothing, it ap- 
pears to me, can possibly be simpler, or clearer, or more 
unambiguous, than this declaration of our Lord, that his 
life was at his own disposal. This he spoke of his human 
life ; for it would be worse than absurd to suppose, that 
before he had a human life, he could have used any such 
language, or could have said of his Divine life, that he had 
power to lay that down. And when he stated, with regard 
to the human life which he had assumed, that he had power 
to lay it down and to take it up again, he was stating what 
was not true if he were a fallen sinful man, and just as 
liable to death as other men, and for the same reason. 
He could not say that he had power to lay down his life, 
and to take it up again, in order to show that he was Lord 
both of life and death, if, in fact, he was just as incapable 
of avoiding or resisting death, as those to whom he spoke. 

1 " Demonstravit Spiritus Mediatoris, quam nulla poena peccati usque ad 
mortem carnis accesserit, quia non earn deseruit invitus, sed quia voluit, 
quando voluit, quomodo voluit." — Augustine Be Trinitate, lib. iv. cap. 16. 
A chapter, the object of which is to prove that the death of Christ was spon- 
taneous. But upon this subject I shall have abundant extracts to produce 
from the primitive writers in the sequel. 2 John x. 17, 18. 



160 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



Xor could he say at all that he had power to lay down his 
life, if, in point of fact, he had no power to retain it. If he 
was not God, and had not assumed human life at his own 
pleasure, then he could have used no such language ; for 
no created being can, by any possibility, possess the power 
here claimed by Jesus. But if he was God, and if the hu- 
man life which he had assumed was as truly his own life as 
his Divinity was his own, then he unquestionably did pos- 
sess a sovereign right to dispose of that life as he pleased. 
And if he had not that power over his own life which no 
created being can have, then it was not possible to present 
that life a voluntary offering for the world. It was not his 
to give. In that case he did no more than Codrus, Curtius, 
and a hundred more have done. Being bound to die at 
any rate, he was generous enough to anticipate the date of 
his death, in order to accomplish an important purpose, and 
acquire a deathless fame. Though what important pur- 
pose could be accomplished by his death, if he had placed 
himself in a situation where death was unavoidable, it is 
not easy to see. 

It manifests little reverence for Scripture to attempt to 
mystify so very plain and explicit a declaration of the fact, 
that our Lord's life was not taken from him ; a declaration 
that might safely be left, without comment, to produce its 
own effect upon every unsophisticated mind. When our 
Lord's auditors saw him standing before them in living hu- 
manity, and heard him say, " I have power to lay down 
my life, and I have power to take it up again," can we 
suppose that they would, or possibly could, think of any 
other life than just that human life which they saw him to 
possess, or could understand the words which they heard 
to be equivalent to these, " I may truly say that I have 
power to lay down my life, because though now, in conse- 
quence of the constitution which I have taken, I am as little 
capable of escaping death as other men, yet I took that 
constitution voluntarily, and had it in my power to choose 
whether I would take it or not ?" They neither could so 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



161 



understand him, nor did so understand him. And the plain 
meaning of the text is undeniable, that even after Christ 
had become Man, he was under no other obligation to die 
than the obligation resulting from his covenant engagement 
to lay down his life for his sheep, and to become obedient 
unto death. 

Should the possibility of a doubt yet remain whether the 
text under consideration just means what it so very plainly 
states, — should it be thought possible, without impiety, to 
understand our Lord to mean any thing else than just that 
at the moment when he was speaking, he had absolute 
power over the life which his hearers saw him possess, to 
lay it down and to take it up at his pleasure, let us consider 
the purpose for which he made the declaration. His object 
was to convince his auditors that he was the Life, and that, 
therefore, all who committed themselves to him would be 
perfectly safe, for none could pluck them out of his hand, 
which would, in fact, be equivalent to the plucking of them 
out of his Father's hand, with whom he declares his unity. 
And the proof that in him their life was safe was, that he 
himself had a life which no man could take from him, — a 
life over which death had no power. Now, this is just the 
ground on which our confidence in him rests, that " as the 
Father hath life in himself, so hath he given the Son to 
have life in himself." But if, when the hour of trial came, 
it was found that he could not resist the power of death in 
himself, nor realize the declaration that he made, that no 
man could take his life from him, — then how can we pos- 
sibly rely upon him, that he can repel the power of death 
from us, or fulfil the promise that he has made to us, that 
none shall ever be able to pluck us out of his hand? 
Surely, the power that wrested his own life out of his hands, 
may well be supposed capable of plucking ours out of his 
hands. He who could not save himself from the grasp of 
the king of terrors, can afford us little confidence in his 
power to save us. If, then, to maintain that Christ, as a 
fallen sinful man, was as incapable of resisting the power 



162 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



of death as we are, — if, to maintain that when the hour of 
trial came, he conquered not death, but death conquered 
him, if this be not directly to falsify his own express decla- 
ration, and to overthrow the very pillars of the Christian's 
hope, I know not what can be considered as doing so. 

It is of no avail to tell us that, at his resurrection, this 
gift of having life in himself, — this power by which the life 
of every one of his members is infallibly secured against all 
assaults, was restored to him. For how do we know that 
he holds that gift now by a firmer tenure than that by 
which he held it before ? Or rather, how can we help 
knowing that he holds it by no firmer tenure ? When he 
made the declaration to the Jews with regard to his power 
of laying it down and taking it up again, he had all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead dwelling in him, to enable him to re- 
sist any violence by which he might be assailed. Can he 
have more than all the fulness of the Godhead to guard it 
now ? Yet we are told that a stronger than he came, and 
by violence took away the gift which the Father had given 
him for the life of the world. After the restoration of that 
gift, are we not left to dread, that by similar violence, it 
may again be taken away? since, assuredly, it can be se- 
cured by no stronger power now than it was at first. 

The text now commented upon is very frequently quoted 
by the early writers ; and, as far as I recollect, not the 
slightest doubt as to its meaning just what it so plainly 
expresses, is manifested by any of them. Ample proofs 
of their clear and unvarying conviction that our Lord's 
life was not taken from him, but voluntarily given, will 
occur in the sequel. In the mean time, as a confirmation 
of my own view of the text, I shall quote two justly cele- 
brated fathers. Gregory Nyssen says, ' Eemember what 
our Lord says of himself, and you will know his power, 
and how, by his own will, and by no necessity of nature, 
he separated his soul from his body, — nag olvtok%mto(>ix,yi 
£%ov<rtoi, koci ov (fivaeag oo/olvxyi ^lafywyvvai ty}v -tyvfcw ex, rov 

vcoparog—for no man, saith he, taketh my life from me, 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



163 



but I lay it down of myself. This being so, what is sought 
will easily appear ; for he who disposes of all things by his 
own authority, awaits not any necessity arising from his 
being betrayed, nor the assault of the Jews as of thieves, 
nor the sentence of Pilate, that their malice should be- 
come the principle and cause of the common salvation of 
men,' &c. 1 Gregory understood the Christian system too 
well to suppose that, if Christ died by the necessity of a 
fallen sinful nature, his death could be any atonement. 
Augustine says, 4 There is much weight in that/; for/ 
lay down, saith he, / lay down my life, I lay down. What 
means, / lay it down f Let not the Jews glory ; they can 
rage, but power they can have none. Let them rage as 
much as they are able, if I choose not to lay down my life, 
what will their raging avail ? ' &c. 2 

Another text, which very clearly evinces our Lord's vic- 
tory over death, is thus written, — " Who in the days of his 
flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, 
with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to 
save him from death, and was heard in that he feared." 3 
To him, as man, death was naturally terrible ; and coming 
to him armed with terrors incalculably greater than he 
ever assaulted any other man with, awakened prayers and 
supplications of the most earnest and pathetic description. 
One of them we have recorded in Psalm xxii. which he 
repeated on the cross : 44 Deliver my soul from the sword ; 
my darling from the power of the dog. Save me from the 
lion's mouth, for thou hast heard me from the horns of the 
unicorns." Such were his prayers in the hour of his fear- 
ful conflict with the powers of darkness. And how was he 

1 Sermon I. On the Resurrection, Works, Vol. II. p. 821. 

2 " Cum magno pondere dictum est Ego; quia egopono, inquit, pono animam 
imam, ego pono. Quid est, ego pono ? Ego fflam pono ? non glorientur Judsei ; 
scevire potuerunt, potestatem habere non potuerunt. Sceviant quantum pos- 
sunt; si ego noluero animam meam ponere, quid sceviendo faeturi sunt?" 
With much more to the same purpose. On John. Tract 47. Section 6. 

3 Hebrews v. 7. 



164 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



heard ? Was it by being given up a bo and captive into 
the power of death, and of him who had the power of 
death, that is, the devil? No ; but he was heard by being 
sustained against all their violence, till he triumphed over 
them on the cross, and death, and he who had the power 
of death, fled away baffled, and found that they had met 
with one man against whom their utmost efforts could 
avail nothing. And then he voluntarily laid down a life 
which was still his own to give or to retain ; and he en- 
tered into the domain of death, not as a captive, but as a 
conqueror, to fulfil the prediction, " O death, I will be thy 
plagues ; O grave, I will be thy destruction." Could he 
accomplish this prediction by being overcome by death on 
the cross? ]STo; had death, and he who had the power of 
death, for one moment overmastered him, then was every 
hope of a lost world extinguished, and that for ever. 

I would refer, also, to the peculiar phraseology used with 
regard to the death of our Lord by the Evangelists Matthew 
and John : oe,(pY)x,c to wuevpoi,, he sent forth the ghost; urot^~ 
luxe to Trvevpa,, he gave up the ghost. This language is ap- 
plied to Christ alone ; and though a variety of phrases are 
used both in the Hebrew and Greek, to express the act of 
dying, no such phrases as these are ever applied to any 
other. I am aware that to give up the ghost is repeatedly 
applied to others in our translation, but in not one instance 
does the original sanction the translation. I am aware, 
too, that r in the Greek classics, a phraseology somewhat 
similar is employed; for example, ov ya,^ evSafo ipvxY}!/ 
oKpYix.e MiuzXeug, Eurip. Hel. For Menelaus died not here. 
But the ipvxn of the poet is not equivalent to the ttusv^o, 
of the apostles. And even if it were, yet the careful ap- 
propriation of this phraseology to Christ alone, would af- 
ford sufficient ground for the supposition that they meant 
to speak of his death, as differing from that of other men 
in its being voluntary. In short, the Greek phrase i]/vxw 
otQwe has little analogy to that of the apostles, and the 
Latin e flare animam has none whatever. Emisit animam, 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



165 



non amisit, is the appropriate remark of one of the fathers, 
I forget at the moment which of them. 

There is another declaration of our Lord, uttered just 
before his last fearful conflict, which sets the voluntary na- 
ture of his death in a very clear light, — " The prince of 
this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. But that the 
world may know that I love the Father, and as the Father 
gave me commandment, even so I do." 1 Had the prince 
of this world found any thing in Christ with which he 
could claim alliance, any thing, however slight, derived 
from him, either mediately through the guilt of our first 
parents, or immediately through his own temptations ; had 
he found in him aught of that law of the members which 
warreth against the law of the mind, then this would have 
been quite sufficient to authorise and enable him to inflict 
upon our Lord that death, the power of inflicting which 
had been delegated to him. But our Lord declares that 
though he was about to meet Satan, and was also about 
to die, he died not in consequence of any power which the 
prince of this world, the propositus mortis, had over him, 
— against this fatal idea he carefully guards his disciples, 
— but he died solely to show the world the depth of his 
love to the Father ; to show that though the command of 
the Father required him to submit to the very last extre- 
mity of mortal suffering, his love was sufficient to make 
him obey even unto death. But what becomes of this 
proof of his love, if in reality he was suspended on the 
cross because he could not help it, and his life was wrung 
from him by a violence which he could not sustain ? If the 
prince of this world conquered Christ upon the cross, and 
violently took his life away, then it is clear that Christ was 
not then " King of kings, and Lord of lords ;" he had met 
with his superior ; he was not even a King at all, but a 
fallen sinful man. But how then could he save men from 
the beginning of the world ? And if the cross was the scene 



1 John sir. 30, 



166 



CHRIST OUE, KING. 



of his defeat, and the monument of his weakness, how can 
it also be the foundation of our hopes and the ground of 
our glorying? Or with what truth could the Apostle say 
that he triumphed over principalities and powers on the 
cross, if there they in reality triumphed over him ? If he 
died not as a King, and as a conquering sufferer, unques- 
tionably his cross was the reverse of a triumph, and the 
Galatians were not so much to be blamed for being ashamed 
of it. 

I appeal also, as a proof of the regal, the triumphal cha- 
racter of our Lord's death, to the circumstances that at- 
tended it, all of which strongly show that, at the moment 
when it took place, it was perfectly voluntary. When the 
band of men and officers went out to take him, he showed 
how easily he could not only have escaped out of their 
hands, — that he could have done long before, for he knew 
well of their intention to come and take him, and could 
have frustrated the traitor's purpose by going out of the 
way, — but how easily he could have resisted their utmost 
power, for, u As soon as he had said unto them, I am he, 
they went backwards and fell to the ground," overwhelmed, 
evidently, by some exhibition of his Divine power. And 
when his disciples would have defended him, he told them 
that if he wanted defence, he could have for that purpose 
not twelve unarmed apostles, but twelve legions of angels. 
" But then how shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus 
it must be ?" Even after he was fastened to the cross, he 
showed that he was still the life ; and even there did he 
exercise his regal functions in the promise that he made 
to the penitent thief. What could possibly induce that 
malefactor to apply in such circumstances to a fellow-suf- 
ferer, to one who, we are assured, was as incapable of re- 
sisting the death to which both had been doomed as him- 
self? It is unquestionable, that he had observed in Christ 
something more than mortal, when he addressed to him 
the prayer, " Lord, remember me when thou comest into 
thy kingdom." And why has the Holy Ghost recorded 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



167 



the fact, but to show that he who, in such a situation, 
could make the magnificent promise, " Verily I say unto 
thee, To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise," was not 
himself the weak victim of death ? And are we to say that 
he who thus, almost with his dying breath, conferred eternal 
life, was unable to save his own life from the assault of 
death ? And when he had endured all that his foes, whether 
men or devils, could inflict ; when the darkness passed 
away, and the victory was won ; then did he cry out, not 
with the feeble breathings of a man whose agonies had 
worn him down to the very lowest stage of existence, 
and of whom death had all but taken possession, but 
with the shout of a conqueror, whose life, after all the 
assaults of death, — after innumerable deaths had been in- 
flicted upon him, was yet as whole within him as it had 
ever been ; thus plainly intimating, that even at that 
moment, instead of bowing his head and giving up the 
ghost, he could have stepped down from the cross. " But 
then how should the Scriptures be fulfilled ? " When the 
centurion saw " that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, 
he said, Truly this man was the Son of God." And deeply 
is it to be regretted that Christian divines, and masters in 
our Israel, should adopt systems of theology, or rather ne- 
gations of all system, which compel them to deny a fact so 
clearly evinced to the centurion by the evidence of his own 
senses, as to draw from him this confession, — a confession 
which the Holy Ghost has thought good to record for our 
conviction, that this man freely gave up, for the redemption 
of a lost world, a life which neither earth nor hell could 
wring from him, and over which death had no power, and 
which, at the very moment of giving it, he could have re- 
tained had he chosen so to do. And the completeness of 
his death is also to be remarked. They who are crucified 
with him were not so clearly and undoubtedly dead, as to 
render the breaking of their legs an unnecessary ceremony. 
But Jesus was so evidently dead that not a bone of him 
was broken ; for when the soldiers u came to Jesus, and 



168 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs.' 1 
And Pilate wondered at his being dead so soon, for when 
Joseph of Arimathea begged his body, it is said " Pilate 
marvelled if he were already dead.' 7 How much more 
would he have marvelled had he seen what the centurion 
saw ; had he seen Jesus at one moment crying out, u It is 
finished," with a " loud voice,' 1 and seen him the next mo- 
ment so certainly and so unquestionably dead, that even 
the soldiers noticed it, and brake not his legs ? And yet 
we are most dogmatically called upon to deny the very 
facts which awakened the wonder both of Pilate and the 
centurion, and to say this was the death, not of the Son 
of God, who, from love to the Father, and in obedience to 
his command, gave up his life freely, but the death of a 
fallen sinful man, who died by the common property of 
flesh to die. This new gospel I believe not, nor, in the face 
of such evidence, can believe. I believe that on the cross 
Christ defeated the powers of darkness, and that by death 
lie destroyed them. He laid down his life of his own ac- 
cord, in order to show that he had a power which no 
created being can ever possess, power to lay down his life, 
and power to take it again. He laid it down that he might 
be Lord of the quick and the dead. He laid it down that 
death, as well as life, might be subservient to the happi- 
ness and glory of his people, and that they might have no- 
thing to fear from the former more than from the latter. 
He laid it down that he might be able to address his 
Church in this cheering language, " I am he that liveth, 
and was dead ; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen, 
and have the keys of hell and of death." 

And is it possible, in the face of such facts as these, to 
believe that this suffering conqueror had in him any thing 
whatever, which could justify the application to him of the 
terms fallen and sinful ? It was essentially necessary that 
he who was to deliver others from their sins, should him- 
self be perfectly free from any thing to which such terms 
could have the remotest application. And it was necessary 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



169 



that we should have the clearest and most decisive evi- 
dence of this ; for upon the certainty that Christ was not 
fallen or sinful, depends the reality of the atonement, and 
the certainty of all our hopes. And never was any thing 
fo severely tried, and never was any testimony so decisive, 
as that which proves the total and perfect sinlessness of 
the Man Christ Jesus, at all times, and in all respects. 
The traitor who betrayed him pronounced him innocent. 
His accusers he could boldly challenge to convince him of 
sin. The sentence of the judge who doomed him to the 
cross was, " I find no fault in him ; I will scourge him 
and let him go." Much guilt, however, might have been 
in him which no mortal eye could detect ; and in a matter 
in which we are so deeply and vitally concerned, much 
stronger evidence than that of the Jews and of Pilate was 
necessary ; and much stronger evidence is given. The 
justice of God assailed him, armed with all the demands 
of a violated law, saying, " Pay me that thou owest." The 
debt was paid, the penalty was endured, every demand was 
satisfied, and divine justice retired, saying, " I find no fault 
in him ; I have scourged him with every stripe due to an 
apostate world ; let him go." The powers of darkness 
were let loose upon him to try if their malice could find 
aught in him with which they might claim alliance, or on 
which they might ground the slightest charge against him ; 
and after efforts the power of which we can little appre- 
hend, they fled baffled away, howling out in anguish their 
own hopeless doom, while forced to say, ' We find no fault 
in him ; wc have scourged him with worse than scorpion's 
stings, and have been compelled to let him go.' And 
while heaven, and earth, and hell, are thus proclaiming to 
us the entire and perfect sinlessness of God's holy child 
Jesus, and pouring on our hearts the resistless conviction, 
that in him was no fault, — nothing which the inexorable 
justice of heaven could condemn, and nothing on which 
even the unmitigated malice of hell could lay hold, who 
are they who dare to come forward and tell us, that had 



170 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



they been at the fiery trial they could have found some- 
thing sinful in him, and could have proved that if he had 
never been led into actual sin it was from no want of incli- 
nation, from no absence of a sinful disposition, for that all 
the propensities of fallen man were as truly and as strong- 
ly in him as they are in us ? — who tell us that while our 
Lord teaches us to pray that the will of God may be done 
on earth as it is done in heaven, he himself was far from 
exemplifying that petition ; for he obeyed, if, indeed, he 
did obey, not from filial love, and with the feeling of de- 
light, as the angels do in heaven, but from that compul- 
sion which makes even the devils, against their will, pro- 
mote the purposes of God, — that in his manhood he obeyed 
not, as he himself declares, because it was his meat and his 
drink so to do, but because " the will of the Spirit; enforced 
the flesh to do it unwilling service." Who are they who, in 
a Christian land, venture to utter such daring impieties, and 
that too under the name of Christian doctrines ? and who 
tell us that when our Lord gave up the ghost, it was not 
the ineffable goodness of God purchasing his Church with 
his own blood, but the weakness of fallen manhood sinking 
beneath the oppression of superior force, and who, when 
they have cast the most unjust reproach upon the flesh of 
Christ, extend that reproach in the most unmeasured 
terms to all who are zealous in defending his honour? 
And who can listen to such impieties, without exclaiming, 
in the language of Gregory Nazianzen, " I am filled with 
grief and anger, — and would that ye could sympathise 
with me, — on account of my Christ, when I see my Christ 
dishonoured for that very reason for which he should be 
honoured most. For, tell me, is he unworthy of honour, 
because he was humbled for thee ? Is he, therefore, a crea- 
ture, because he careth for the creature ? " 1 Who are they 

crxofis tcoli vftzig, 61 civ ibto ^tcc lovlo o£ltftoi£op,£VQv fidv lov 
%oi<rrov, Vi 6 fix'KtvGi liftuaScti Ztxcuog r\v. Aict lovlo yct^ 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



171 



who come forward to astound the world with the porten- 
tous novelty, that, from his cradle to his cross, the humanity 
of Christ was fallen sinful humanity, — a tenet only not lu- 
dicrous from its complicated absurdity, because its total 
subversion of every hope which the Gospel affords, compels 
us to regard it with a very different feeling — and who un- 
sparingly doom to perdition all who dare to deny that 
which the voice of heaven, and of earth, and of hell, alike 
compels us to deny ? And where have they learned that 
when the " Second man," who is the " Lord from heaven," 
came to accomplish a work of incomparable greater diffi- 
culty than that which was assigned to the " First man," 
who was " of the earth, earthy," he was not sent forth 
to his work with all the immaculate purity and spotless 
holiness with which the first man was endued ? This ques- 
tion, indeed, they will very readily answer : and with as 
unhesitating and unfaltering an accent, as if they were 
giving utterance to a truth of which no man can be igno- 
rant, and which no man can deny, and which does not 
even need any proof, they can tell us, and that in the face 
of evidence the most ample, the most direct, and the most 
decisive, that this has been the doctrine of the Church in 
all ages. Now, I most distinctly assert, that the Church 
never in any age either believed or taught that the huma- 
nity of Christ was fallen sinful humanity ; and in asserting 
this, I am asserting no more than that the Church never re- 
nounced Christianity. This is not the place to produce the 
proof of this assertion, but ample proof of it shall be given 
in the sequel. In the meantime, I think enough has been 
stated to show that the death of Christ was perfectly 
voluntary at the moment when it took place, and that 
his own declaration, " No man taketh my life from me," 
remains an undeniable truth. We must, therefore, on 
looking to Christ as our King, not only reject as a ground- 

cfUftog, tine fioi, 61, lia as lotTTStvog ; }>ta louio kIig/ucc 61t lov 
xltupoflog xrihflc&i ; 1. fc. Sermon xxxi 



172 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



less vision, but explode as a fatal heresy, the tenet, that 
when the Word was made flesh, he became fallen sinful 

flesh. 

It may be proper here to notice one or two of the conse- 
quences of this tenet, as they affect the regal character of 
Christ. If his death was involuntary, — if he died u by the 
common property of flesh to die, because it was accursed 
in the loins of our first parents," then it is as clear as the 
light of day, that the Godhead had withdrawn from our Lord 
previous to his death ; for I suppose the most hardy main- 
tainer of the new theology will hesitate to assert, that had 
he been sustained by all the fulness of the Godhead dwell- 
ing in him bodily, he could have died by any violence that 
either men or devils were capable of inflicting, — could have 
• died Qioa(pccyo)g, as it is strongly expressed by Cyril of Je- 
rusalem, 1 or could have met with any assault which he was 
not able to repel. It will surely not be maintained, that 
death and Satan overcame God on the cross. The God- 
head must, therefore, have been withdrawn, and our Lord 
forsaken, not simply as to personal comfort, but as to ef- 
fectual support, before he died. And whether the God- 
head voluntarily withdrew from him, and left him the 
helpless victim of death, or was forcibly expelled from 
him, these consequences are obvious, that his death was 
no atonement, and his resurrection no pledge whatever of 
ours. 2 His death could be no atonement for sin, for an ffi- 

1 Ovk ot,vot,yx,&to)$ MtpYixslvjVy QaiYiu, ovhz Sioatpoiyag oii/£(>y}§yi. 

lie gave not up his life by necessity, neither by violence was it taken away; for 
hear what he himself saith, " / have power to lay down my life," &c. — Catechesis. 
xiii. 3. 

2 It has, indeed, been very distinctly maintained that there was no Divi- 
nity in Christ, that in him the Divinity was emptied of itself, that he brought 
to earth a Godhead person, but no Godhead properties. But this limiting of 
the Godhead, this separation of a Godhead person from Godhead properties, 
as I have already had occasion to remark, goes so very directly and imme- 
diately to the establishment of Arianism, that one may hope that it was 
hastily — though repeatedly — put down, in the desperate attempt to support a 
monstrous dogma, without adverting to its real character. We shall pro- 
bably hear no more of it; and perhaps we may hope that when it is with- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



178 



voluntary atonement is very nearly a contradiction in terms, 
and was never maintained by any one that I ever heard of. 
Even the heathens held it an unpropitious omen, if the 
animal sacrificed had to be dragged reluctantly to the 
altar. Moreover, the presence of the Divinity was essen- 
tially necessary to the " Lamb of God," in order to sustain 
him under the pressure of sufferings which, without such 
Almighty support, no mere man could have endured ; and 
also to give to his sacrifice that dignity and value which it 
could not otherwise possess. Besides, if the Divinity were 
withdrawn from Jesus before his death, — as, I repeat, it 
must have been if his death was not voluntary, — then it 
was not the Lord's Christ that died ; he was reduced to the 
condition of a mere man. His death could be no sacrifice 
for sin, because in him, as in us, it was a debt due to na- 
ture which he could no more avoid paying than we can. 
But it could not be both a debt due to nature, and also a 
price freely paid for our redemption. Indeed, the new 
theology utterly rejects the very expression as a low huck- 
stering contract. Christ was bound to die at any rate as 
well as we are, and for the same reason, the sinfulness of 
his nature ; and was chosen to carry away our sins with 
him into the land of forgetfulness, upon some principle of 
which I know nothing, can find no intimation in the Bible, 
can hear no tidings in the Church, and can form not the 
most distant conception. As to life being restored to him. 
if it be true that he was fallen and sinful, and died because 
he was so, then I see not how God could restore his life to 
him, upon any principle upon which he might not as justly 
and as properly have restored it at once to Adam, when 
he became fallen and sinful. 

If his death was involuntary, then his resurrection is no 
pledge of ours ; for if the Divinity was separated from him , 



drawn, it will also be seen and admitted, that that can be no Christian doc- 
trine, the defence of which could suggest such an argument, or which such- 
&n argument is capable of supporting. 



174 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



— and that it was separated from his dead body has been 
distinctly maintained, — then Christ was never buried and 
never rose. Jesus of Nazareth was buried, and was raised 
up by the power of God ; but the Lord's Christ rose not. 
And we can derive no information, and no more hope from 
the resurrection of Jesus, than we can derive from the re- 
surrection of Lazarus, or of Jairus' daughter, or of any other 
who was raised from the dead. That it is not an impos- 
sible thing for God to raise the dead these instances teach , 
us, and that of Jesus teaches us no more. That he who is 
our Head is the Resurrection and the Life, and that, there- 
fore, the dead in Christ shall rise to the possession of that 
life which is hid with Christ in God, it teaches not, for 
Christ never rose. 

Now, this is just a revival of the old doctrine of the 
Gnostics. They made a distinction between Jesus and 
Christ, Jesus they maintained to be a mere man, — many 
of them, indeed, that he w^as only a phantom, — that Christ 
descended upon him at his baptism, and left him when he 
was affixed to the cross. In this way they completely eva- 
cuated the doctrine of the resurrection, a doctrine which 
they denied. They were willing enough to admit, with the 
modern Socinian, that Jesus was raised up from the dead. 
The resurrection of Christ they denied ; and the Catholic 
writers easily saw, what indeed the Gnostic did not attempt 
to conceal, that while the resurrection of Christ was denied, 
the resurrection of Jesus proved nothing whatever as to a 
general resurrection. Now, to maintain that the death of 
our Lord was not perfectly voluntary, at the moment when 
it took place, is just to teach as clearly as any Gnostic ever 
taught, that the Divinity was separated from him at that 
time, and thus effectually to destroy both the atonement 
and the doctrine of the resurrection, for " if Christ be not 
raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins." The 
resurrection of Jesus is no security that we shall rise. 

Again, if the death of Christ was involuntary, if he was 
a fallen sinful man, and died because he was so, then the doc- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



175 



trine of Imputation, as it has been always held by the Church, 
is a mere human figment, having no place whatever in the 
scheme of human redemption. According to the commonly 
received theology, there is an imputation of the believer's 
guilt to Christ, who endured its penalty ; and a transfer- 
ence of Christ's righteousness to the believer. The suffer- 
ings of Christ are considered as being entirely vicarious, 
and therefore entirely voluntary. We were in debt ; he 
paid it. We were in bondage ; he gave the ransom. We 
were slaves, and he purchased us with his own blood ! The 
matter may be illustrated thus : A rebel is taken, tried, and 
condemned. As he is led out to punishment, the King's 
Son, the heir of his crown, steps forward and proposes to 
purchase the life and liberty of the rebel, by having the 
sentence transferred to himself, and consenting to undergo 
its infliction. His father consents, and his offer being ac- 
cepted, the law has the same hold upon him that it had up- 
on the rebel, while upon the latter it ceases to have any 
farther claim. And though it be now his own Son upon 
whom the sentence is to be inflicted, the King abates not 
one iota of its severity, but causes it to be carried into exe- 
cution to its fullest extent. This shows, on the part both 
of the Father and the Son, how highly they prize the safety 
of the rebel. It shows the unpardonable guilt of rebellion, 
that even the heir to the throne cannot deliver the rebel 
otherwise than by undergoing his sentence. It shows the 
majesty of the government, and the sanctity of the law, in 
a much more striking manner, than the death of the rebel 
himself could have done, when the King's Son is spared no- 
thing of what the rebel was doomed to bear. 

This view of substitution the new theology characterizes 
as a destructive falsehood, and says that in this case the 
King's Son dies by a legal fiction, — he is treated as that 
which in reality he is not, and the king who so treats him 
is a king of fictions, a king of make-believes. The King's 
Son cannot in this case justly die for the rebel, because he 
is not in reality under condemnation. The law has no 



176 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



hold upon him but by a legal fiction, and to exact from 
him the penalty due to the rebel would be to treat him as 
being that which he is not. If, then, he wishes to die for 
the rebel, he must give the law exactly the same hold upon 
him that it has upon the rebel. And this he can only do 
by becoming what the rebel is. He must raise a rebellion 
against his Father, — must withdraw from their allegiance 
as many subjects as the rebel has withdrawn, — must slay 
as many faithful subjects as the rebel has slain, — must 
create as much devastation and misery in the kingdom as 
the rebel has created, and then he is in a condition to die 
for the rebel. Then the law has a real, not a fictitious hold 
upon him, — then when he has placed himself exactly in the 
situation of the rebel, — not by voluntarily consenting to 
be considered and treated as standing in that situation, but 
by voluntarily consenting actually to become a rebel, then 
he may die, nay, he must die. It was in his own power 
to determine whether he would place himself in this situa- 
tion or not ; but having agreed to place himself in it, he 
can no longer choose whether he will die or not. He might 
choose whether he would give the law not a fictitious but 
a real hold upon him or not ; but having given it that hold, 
he can no longer choose whether he will submit to its sen- 
tence or not. He stands before it in all the helplessness of 
one who does not voluntarily bind himself to endure its 
sentence, though he has never deserved it, but who has vo- 
luntarily consented to place himself in a situation in which 
it has a hold upon him, and will inflict its sentence upon 
him whether he choose or not. 

This is the new theory of imputation which is connected 
with the tenet that Christ, as a fallen sinful man, died by 
the common property of flesh to die, and not merely be- 
cause he voluntarily bore the penalty of our sins, without 
having any connection with their guilt. Now, upon this 
theory I would remark, in the first place, that it actually 
involves the fiction which it is professedly got up to avoid. 
The rebellion of the son against his father arises from 



CHRIST OUR KING. I 7 1 

no discontentment with his father's government, and no 
dislike to his father's person, and no dissatisfaction with 
his father's measures ; but is got up simply with the view 
of qualifying himself for legal execution. There is, in fact, 
all the while no rebellion. It may produce all the miseries 
of rebellion, but it is a mere pretence of rebellion designed 
for a very different purpose than that of dethroning the 
king, or compelling him to change his measures. Its sole 
design is to fit the son for being punished instead of him 
who really rebelled, and the fiction accordingly remains in 
all its force. I would remark next, that, in this case, if it 
can be proved against the son that there is one atrocity 
for which the rebel, whom he wishes to save, has been con- 
demned, of which he has not made himself guilty, then so 
far his substitution fails, — the law cannot, but by a legal 
fiction, exact of him all the claims that it has against the 
rebel, but only those of which he has made himself really 
guilty. The father knows very well that his son is not 
really intending to endanger his government, and that he 
need take no steps to oppose his pretended rebellion. He 
has only to watch and see that his son makes himself guilty 
up to the proper extent, lest he should inflict upon him 
more than he has really earned ; and then he knows that 
his son will of his own accord deliver himself up to justice. 
To fit him for becoming the rebel's substitute, he must be 
careful to make himself guilty up to the full extent of the 
rebel's criminality, Now, the result of this theory, when 
applied to Christ, is just this, that if there be one sinner 
on earth more guilty than he was, more widely alienated 
from God than he was, more deeply enslaved by the devil, 
the world, and the flesh, than he was, then that is a sinner 
whom Christ cannot save, — the penalty of whose crimes the 
law cannot exact of him, without a legal fiction, — without 
making God a God of fictions and make-believes. I remark, 
finally, on this theory of substitution, that, besides the bias - 
phemy of making Christ a sinner up to the utmost limits 
of human criminality, — for he cannot, without a legal tic- 

h 2 



178 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



tion, endure the penalty of, or forgive, any sin that he has 
not committed, — it renders substitution not a " precious 
truth," as our new theologians, in their own view of it, ad- 
mit it to be, but a complete non-entity. There is no such 
thing as substitution. When he has committed the guilt, 
that he may be able to die for it, without a legal fiction, he 
then surely dies for his own guilt, and not by the imputa- 
tion of ours. All the lessons taught by redemption, too, 
on this theory, utterly fail to be taught ; and, again, the 
question recurs, (the question to which neither revelation, 
in this view of it, has furnished, nor reason can discover 
an answer,) why, unless as a blot in creation, — as a mo- 
nument of any thing rather than the perfections of God, was 
such a being as man made, and such a work as redemp- 
tion appointed ? 

Such are some of the fatal consequences resulting from 
the doctrine that our King was no king in his death, that 
that death was not perfectly voluntary at the moment when 
it took place, but that he died by the common property of 
flesh to die. Nor are these consequences wrung by remote 
inference from the new system. They meet us in every page 
of the writings in which that system is promulgated, and 
expressed in language stronger by far than I have thought 
it right to copy. The only objection that I can find urged 
against the common view of imputation, which I have illus- 
trated above, and which supposes that, from the first ap- 
pointment of Christ clown to the final consummation of the 
mystery of God, every step that he took, every pang that 
he endured, was perfectly voluntary on his part, and was 
inflicted upon him by no desert of his own, is one which 
Socinians have been in the habit of urging, till, I suppose, 
they are either wearied with repeating it, or ashamed of its 
silliness, for they seem to have abandoned it. It is, that if 
God treated Christ as if he had been guilty, while in reality 
he was not guilty, then he treated him as he had not de- 
served to be treated ; and to represent God as treating his 
creatures as that which they are not, is to represent him as 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



179 



unjust. Xow, when we say that God punished Christ, 
though he had merited no suffering, we do not represent 
him as considering Christ to be what he was not. He con- 
sidered him to be, and acted toward him as being, what he 
really was, — the representative of his people, standing in 
their place, sustaining their person, but only by substitu- 
tion, and bearing their iniquities, but only by imputation. 
I observe farther, that God does not always treat his crea- 
tures according to their deserts. We do not deserve that a 
Saviour should be provided for us ; and yet God has given 
his Son to die for us. Xor will it avail to say that this was 
the claim of justice yielding to the entreaty of mercy. Jus- 
tice in the Supreme Ruler can never yield to any thing ; 
and the extension of mercy to fallen man was not only 
sanctioned, but required by the justice of God ; — not by 
justice toward us, who might very justly have been left to 
perish, but by justice toward himself, and toward all his 
unfallen creatures, that he might, for his own glory and 
their happiness, vindicate the perfections Avhich the fall of 
angels and of men seemed to bring into doubt. Justice re- 
quired that vindication. That we were chosen, as the beings 
through whose redemption that vindication should be ef- 
fected, was no deserving of ours. The Socinian objection, 
therefore, rests upon both a contracted and a perverted 
view of the Divine justice. But the objection is an infi- 
nitely worse thing in the mouths of the new theologians, 
than it is in the mouth of a Socinian. He means to deny 
the imputation of our sins to Christ in any sense, being fully 
aware that if that imputation were the ground of Christ's 
death at all, it must be the sole ground of it ; while they 
maintain imputation, and urge the objection for the pur- 
pose of showing that there was much more in the death of 
Christ than his merely consenting to bear the punishment 
of our iniquities, — for the purpose of proving that if God 
treated him as a sinner, while in reality he was no sinner, 
then he was treating him as that which he was not, and in 
so doing was acting unjustly, — was a God of fictions and 



180 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



make-believes. And this appears to me to be much worse 
than Socinianism. Yet for the whole unmitigated weight 
of these fearful consequences, must that system be held re- 
sponsible, which teaches that when the Eternal Word be- 
came man, he became a fallen sinful man, and had no longer 
the power to choose whether he would die or not. These 
consequences may be, and very probably will be denied ; 
but till the whole system out of which they grow be aban- 
doned, there is no evading them. 

When it is declared that Christ died by the common 
property of flesh to die, I would ask, do they who main- 
tain this really believe, that when the Word became man 
he ceased to be God ? They must mean this, I suppose, 
when they talk of his being limited, — of his emptying him- 
self of his divinity, — of his bringing a Godhead person into 
the world but no Godhead properties. Yet it is perfectly 
plain, that if he could cease to be God, then he never was 
God at all. It is, therefore, very cordially believed by the 
Church, that when he became what he previously was not, 
he did not cease to be what he previously was. u Do not 
I fill heaven and earth ?" saith the Lord. And who is he 
who saith this but the Divine Word, who speaks in all the 
prophets ? And was it not as true after his incarnation as 
before it ? To say that when the Word was made flesh he 
was less the Word and the power of God,, was less the 
light and the life of men, less the ruler and Lord of all 
than he was before his incarnation, is an impiety which I 
shall not attempt to characterise. Yet how can they plead 
guiltless of that impiety who teach us, that in consequence 
of the fallen sinful nature which he had assumed, the Word 
was as incapable of resisting the power of death as we are ? 
— that he, the life of all, was compelled, not merely by the 
covenant entered into with the Father, not by substitution 
or imputation only, but by the physical constitution of 
that humanity which he had assumed, to yield himself a 
prey to the king of terrors ? But there is no ground for 
tbe supposition. When he became man, he was not the 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



181 



less God. When he bore hunger and thirst, he was never- 
theless showing, by changing water into wine, and by feed- 
ing thousands with a few loaves, that he it was who was 
indeed supplying the wants of every living thing ; and that 
he endured hunger and thirst from no defect of powers. 
When he had not where to lay his head, he was not the 
less u God over all, blessed for ever." When wearied, he 
rested on Jacob's well, the pillars of heaven and the foun- 
dations of the earth rested securely on his sustaining 
power. And never did he give so splendid a proof that he 
was indeed the Life, as when he died. For the mystery 
and the marvel which angels desired to look into was, how . 
he by any possibility could die. Had he been fallen and 
sinful, and thus incapable of escaping death, there could 
have been no mystery, nothing strange in the matter. 
But they knew not all the extent of his power, they knew 
not that he had the keys of hell and of death, and that re- 
belling as they were against heaven, they were still com- 
pletely subject to him, till they saw him tread the region 
of mortality, and enter at his own pleasure, unsubdued, 
unharmed, and as a conqueror, into their dreary domain. 
Then, indeed, when he died did they know, and for the 
first time know, in all the extent of its meaning, that he 
was the Life. In the depth of his humiliation he was not 
less God, nor less powerful and glorious, than in the height 
of his exaltation. Nay, in his death he was giving the 
most decisive proof of his Godhead; for he was showing 
that he possessed a power which no mere creature can ever 
possess, a power to lay down a life which had been forfeit- 
ed by no sin, was demanded of him by no law, and could 
be taken from him by no power. In dying he proved him- 
self to be the Lord of both life and death. When crucified 
he was still the u Lord of glory,", not less, nor, to the in- 
telligent eye, less conspicuously than when ascending up 
on high he led captivity captive, and received gifts for 
men. It is justly argued by Gregory Nysson, 1 that the 

1 Catechetical Oration, chap. xxiv. 



182 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



humiliation of our Lord was a much more splendid exhibi- 
tion of his divine power than the magnitude of the heavens, 
the splendour of their luminaries, the embellishments of 
the universe, or the perpetual admiration of all nature. 

If this view be correct, — and if it be not, the Church in 
every age has been miserably deceived, — then it is clear 
that all the hosts of hell could never have overpowered 
Christ, could never have borne down to the grave that 
flesh in which he did not dwell, with which he did not as- 
sociate, but which was his own flesh — himself — as 
much as his divinity is his own — or himself. Nor, when 
they assailed him, did he consent to die till he had repelled 
their utmost hostility, and sent them conquered away ; and 
then, and not till then, did he descend into the tomb, as 
freely and as voluntarily as he shortly afterwards ascend- 
ed up on high. 

To the fact that Christ died by no necessity of nature, 
but because he pleased so to do, to show his love to the* 
Father, a fact established by such overwhelming evidence, 
there is only^one objection that I recollect which requires 
any notice. Nor would that require any notice either ; 
only I observe that it is insisted upon, and silly things are 
sufficient to influence silly people. It is this, that man is 
by nature mortal, and, therefore, if Christ did not become 
mortal, and as liable to death as we are, then he did not be- 
come truly and completely man. To this objection I shall 
reply in the words of two ancient writers. The first is 
Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch in the second century, who 
thus treats the question, — " But some will say, was man 
made mortal by nature ? By no means. What, then, im- 
mortal ? Neither do we say tMs. Was he then made no- 
thing ? Nor this either do we say. But I say he was made 
neither mortal nor immortal. For if he had made him im- 
mortal from the beginning, he would have made him a god. 
Again, if he had made him mortal, God would have seem- 
ed to be the cause of his death. He made him, therefore, 
neither mortal nor immortal, but, as I said above, capable 
of both, that he might gradually attain immortality, keep- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



183 



ing the commandment of God, and receiving from him the 
reward of immortality, might become aged ; but if he should 
turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he might be 
to himself the cause of death." 1 

But I know of no writer who has treated this question 
either so largely or so well as Anselm, who was Archbi- 
shop of Canterbury in the eleventh century. In a dialogue 
with his friend Boso, the latter comes upon the question of 
our Lord's mortality, not seeing clearly how he could die, 
if he were not mortal as other men. In reply to this, An- 
selm, after observing that men would have been truly men 
though they had never fallen or died, — that mortality is 
not essential to human nature, else man could never be- 
come immortal, — that corruptibility and incorruptibility 
belong not to the nature, as they neither make nor destroy 
it, thus proceeds — u But because there is no man who does 
not die, therefore, 4 mortal' is put into the definition of 
man by philosophers who did not believe that the whole 
man ever was, or is, capable of becoming immortal. 
Wherefore, when you have proved him to be truly a man, 
this is no sufficient proof that he was mortal. Boso. Seek 
you then some other reason by which it may be proved 
that he was capable of dying ; for I know none, if you 
know not. Anselm. There can be no doubt that, being 
God, he must be omnipotent. B. True. A. If, then, he 
chooses, he must be able to lay down his life, and to take 
it up again. B. If he cannot do this, it does not appear that 
he is omnipotent. A. He will be able, therefore, never to 
die, if he so pleases ; and he will also be able to die and to 
rise again. But whether he lay down his life without the 
interference of any other, or whether some other, by his 
own permission, cause that he lay it down, makes no dif- 
ference as far as his power is concerned. B. That is clear. 
A. If, then, he be pleased to permit he may be slain ; 
and if he do not choose to permit, he cannot be slain. B. 



1 To Autolyene, Book ii. 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



To this conclusion reason inevitably leads us. A. Reason 
also teaches us that he must have something greater than 
any thing that is below God, which he may give to God, 
not as a debt, but of his own accord. B. It does so. A. 
But this cannot be found, either below himself or out of 
himself. B. True. A. It must, therefore, be found in 
himself," &C. 1 To maintain that our Lord's life was en- 
tirely at his own disposal, and never could be taken from 
him by any power, will not henceforth, I hope, be consi- 
dered as a denial that he was as truly and properly a man 
as we are. 

Christ, then, was King when he was on earth, — a King 
in the lowest state of his deep humiliation ; and in that 
very humiliation giving the most splendid and decisive 
proof of his omnipotent power. Before proceeding far- 
ther, it will be proper to notice the duties which we owe to 
Christ as our King. In doing this, I cannot do better than 
avail myself of a paper that I wrote upon this subject long 
ago, and which I shall here nearly copy. 

One duty which we owe to Christ as our King, is to obey 
his laws. To neglect this obedience is to deny that he is 
King. u Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the 
things which I say?" He came to save us from our sins, 
and, therefore, we can have no part in his salvation while 

1 In the treatise, Cur Deus Homo ? Book II. Chap. xi. Besides his clear 
view of the mortality of man, it will be seen that, towards the end of the ex- 
tract, he enters upon a line of argument which he repeatedly elsewhere 
takes up, which goes distinctly to show, that, in his view, that humanity 
which Christ offered to God must have been something superior to anything 
below God, that is, to any created being. I suppose that on so simple a mat- 
ter, on which there can be but few who can contrive to get into error, I shall 
be readily excused from loading my page with the originals of the above 
quotations. It is truly painful to see that while such sound and simple 
views of human nature were held by such early writers, men should be found 
in the present advanced state of the world's age, who, swelling with that 
ipirit which "despises others," and loudly proclaiming their intimate ac- 
quaintance with the Fathers, can yet blunder so grossly. We talk of mortal 
man, and it would be strange if we did not. But they who can argue upon 
the word " mortal," as if it formed a part of the definition of man, are pro- 
bably too ignorant to know how much they have yet to learn. 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



185 



we are living in sin. It is not to be doubted that many 
profess to rely on Christ as their propitiation, who pay no 
great regard to his laws ; and think themselves perfectly 
safe while living in the habitual neglect of some of his com- 
mands ; nay, who are the less careful to avoid sin just on 
account of the sufficiency of him on whom they profess to rely 
for its pardon. But we may rest assured that if Christ be 
not a King whom we obey, neither is he a Priest who will 
save us. To hope that we can be saved without obedi- 
ence, is to hope not merely against hope, but against pos- 
sibility ; for surely it is not possible to be saved from sin 
while yet we are living in sin. rt His servants are ye to whom 
ye obey," saith the apostle ; and if we obey sin, then it is 
plain that we are not the servants of Christ. Though our 
conformity to the laws of Christ be not the cause of our 
salvation, it may not on that account be neglected ; for it 
is something more than the cause of salvation, it is the 
thing itself. When we are made holy, then are we saved, 
and not till then. Obedience, therefore, is essentially ne- 
cessary. Nor is that obedience to be limited by our con- 
venience or our pleasure ; or to be neglected because it 
may in some instances tend to our disadvantage, or be- 
cause they whose good opinion we are most anxious to ob- 
tain may call us precise, and narrow-minded, and right- 
eous overmuch ; or because the things that we find it 
necessary to avoid, are things freely indulged in, even by 
those who maintain a respectable character in the Church. 
That is no obedience which extends only as far as we find 
it perfectly convenient. It was not such an obedience that 
was yielded by the u cloud of witnesses," whose examples 
are recorded for our imitation. It was not such an obedi- 
ence that was yielded by Christ for our sakes, when he 
submitted to u learn obedience ( by the things which he 
suffered." Nor was it such obedience that he required of 
us, when he said, " If any man will come after me, let him 
deny himself, and take up his cross daily and follow me," 
or when he declared, " If any man come to me, and hats 



186 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and 
brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot 
be my disciple." 

Nor are we to suppose that our obligations to obedience 
are discharged by attention to the positive institutions of 
Christianity, as they seem to think, who, if they read the 
Scriptures, and worship God in their families, and attend 
his public services, and take the sacraments, and maintain 
a zealous profession, and treat the ordinances of religion 
with great respect, and contribute to its advancement in 
the world, — imagine that this is fulfilling their obedience to 
Christ. They observe with regularity the stated days and 
hours of religious duties ; but when the stated period is 
past all thoughts of religion are dismissed, and they are 
not to be distinguished by any thing in their conduct as 
the disciples of Christ. All these things are necessary to 
promote in ourselves and others the principles of piety and 
holiness ; but unless they be attended to only as a means 
to this end, they can be of no service to us. Yet they are 
often attended to, not as a means of promoting holiness, 
but as a substitute for the want of it, as duties which it is 
necessary to perform, but from the performance of which 
we never even look for any growth in grace. Our Lord 
tells us what will be the sentence of men of this character. 
1 ' Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we 
not prophesied in thy name ? and in thy name have cast 
out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? 
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you ; 
depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 

Neither are we to suppose that we have fully obeyed 
Christ, when, besides attending to all his institutions, we 
have scrupulously regulated our conduct according to his 
laws. This is all the obedience that an earthly ruler re- 
quires. If we do not resist his laws, he leaves us at liberty 
to disapprove of them, and openly to express our disappro- 
bation. But it is not so with our heavenly King. He re- 
quires us not only to obey his laws, but to approve of 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



187 



them, — to love them. In his eye obedience is of no value 
unless it proceed from the heart. Every man does many 
things that are materially good : but if such good deeds 
proceed from ostentation, or the prospect of advantage, or 
the dread of censure, or from any secular motive, — if they 
do not flow from that charity which predominates in the 
renewed heart, they are the works of one still " dead in 
trespasses and sins," and are properly denominated " dead 
works." They want the living principle which alone can 
render them good in the eye of him who searches the 
heart ; and however excellent in the outward performance, 
are earthly and immoral in their motive and design. They 
are corrupted in their source ; and if the root be rotten- 
ness, the blossom can be but dust. Bodily service profit- 
eth nothing ; and our external compliance with a law 
which we hate in our hearts, is by our King considered as 
no obedience at all. The reason of this is sufficiently ob- 
vious. Our obedience is required that it may do good, — 
not to God, who needs not our services, but to ourselves ; 
that it may establish in us such habits as will fit us for the 
occupations and enjoyments of a higher state of existence. 
But if it proceed from any improper principle, then its ope- 
ration will be in direct opposition to this end, and, conse- 
quently, must meet the disapprobation of him, u the end 
of whose commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and 
of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." Every ac- 
tion strengthens the principle from which it proceeds ; and, 
being often repeated, renders the exercise of that principle 
necessary to our happiness. And when our love to God 
and man has been so " rooted and grounded" in us by a 
long course of holiness, that the exercise of it constitutes 
all our felicity, we are then fitted for the kingdom of 
heaven. Whereas, the most perfect obedience, were it 
possible for such obedience to proceed from any other 
principle, would not in the slightest degree promote our 
moral improvement, nor our meetness for the society of 
angels and the spirits of just men made perfect. 



188 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



If, then, we truly acknowledge Christ our King, we shall 
not be satisfied with offering to him the external expres- 
sions of esteem and respect, nor with adding to these ex- 
pressions a scrupulous attention to his laws in our conduct. 
We shall not be satisfied unless our thoughts, and feelings, 
and desires, be agreeable to his law, as well as our actions. 
We shall not consider our salvation from sin complete 
while there is one imagination in our heart that exalts it- 
self against him. When every thought of our heart is 
brought into captivity to Christ, — when we not only ap- 
prove of his laws, but delight in them, — when we not only 
consider obedience to be our duty, but feel it to be our 
pleasure, — when we do not seek excuses for neglecting, but 
opportunities of obeying his commands, — when we feel 
such a sense of his kindness to us as to be delighted with 
every opportunity of expressing our gratitude by word or 
by deed, — then, and not till then, shall we consider our 
conformity to his law to be such as will give us confidence 
when we appear before him in judgment, and will prepare 
us for that vision of God which communicates to the pure 
in heart joys that are u unspeakable and full of glory ;" 
but from which the unholy, even supposing them admitted 
to it, would fly away, and seek a refuge in the regions of 
darkness, and in the society of spirits more congenial with 
their own. 

Another duty that we owe to our King is, to depend upon 
his power. If such an obedience as has been described bo 
essentially requisite, it may be said, u Who then can be 
saved ? V Had outward obedience only been necessary, 
even that is difficult. Still, however, we can conceive it 
possible for a man of firm resolution to regulate his actions 
by any law however strict. But who can change the whole 
current of his thoughts, affections, and desires, — can bring 
himself to hate and despise what he loves with all his 
heart, — and to love and delight in all that he is most averse 
to ? We may abstain from taking vengeance on our ene- 
mies, but can we love them that injure us ? We abstaiu 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



189 



from appropriating to ourselves what does not belong to 
us ; but, if it be really desirable, who can help desiring it ? 
u Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his 
spots ?" Can we make ourselves new creatures ? No. We 
could as easily have created ourselves at first. But this 
will by no means form any apology for disobedience. For 
as the wisdom of our Prophet removes our ignorance, and 
the sacrifice of our Priest removes our condemnation, so 
that we are without excuse if we be either ignorant or in 
a state of alienation from God, in the same manner the 
power of our King removes our moral weakness, and en- 
dues us with strength to triumph over the foes whom he 
has conquered, so that we are inexcusable if we remain 
the servants of sin. To doubt this is to doubt the Eedeem- 
er's sufficiency to perfect his work. It is to say that God 
has given us a Saviour who does for us some things that 
are necessary for our salvation, but leaves other things 
equally necessary undone. But to render us personally 
holy is the very end for which he came ; and it is impious 
to suppose that he is either unable or unwilling to accom- 
plish it. For which of our enemies is he unable to subdue ? 
He assures us that he has " overcome the world and 
assures us also that if we believe we shall overcome it. 1 
Throughout his life, and in his death, he conquered Satan, 
and so conquered him that his fall was perfectly manifest to 
all. This is strongly denied; but I hope it has been placed 
beyond all doubt, both by the direct evidence that has been 
adduced, and by a view of the fatal consequences that flow 
from the opposite supposition. Satan, therefore, is a con- 
qaered foe. He can lead us captive no more. If we serve 
him, it is willingly ; for if we resist him stedfast in the 
faith, he will flee from us ; if we be begotten of God, we 
are enabled by his grace so to keep ourselves that that 
wicked one toucheth us not. But then we are tried by the 
corruptions of our own evil hearts, and how do we know 
that he can subdue this foe, if he was not himself tried by 

1 Sermon on 1 John y. 4. 



190 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



it as a fallen and sinful man ? How do we know that he 
can subdue in us what he never subdued in himself? I 
put not these questions foolishly or unnecessarily, foolish 
and useless as they may seem to be. The argument has 
been urged in support of the tenet that he was fallen and 
sinful, that unless he were so, we know that he can sub- 
due two of our foes, the devil and the world, but do not 
know that he can subdue the third, that is, the flesh. We 
do not know, it is said, — Yes, we do know that he can 
" subdue to himself," and can conquer the most inveterate 
corruption of our nature. We know it from many very de- 
cisive texts of Scripture. We know it, because if he has 
subdued the sources of corruption, he can subdue the corrup- 
tion itself, — if he has bound the strong man, he can spoil 
him of his goods. We know it from the fact that he has 
actually renewed, and sanctified, and saved thousands. 
But upon this point, especially, I beg to refer the reader 
to the Sermon which concludes the first part of this trea- 
tise, where he will find the sympathy of Christ with the 
believer, in all his temptations, treated in a manner which, 
I think, must give him the most perfect satisfaction with 
regard to both the reality and the depth of that sympathy. 
At least, if it do not satisfy him, I should feel it altogether 
hopeless to attempt giving him satisfaction. But the ar- 
gument, that we know not that Christ can subdue in us 
the propensities of the fallen manhood, if he never sub- 
dued them in himself, I shall have occasion more particu- 
larly to notice, and to show that it not only removes the 
foundation of every duty which we owe to Christ as our 
King, but makes him, undeniably, guilty of both original 
and actual sin, when I come to discuss in the sequel the 
testimony of Lactantius. In the mean time, I observe, 
that the power of our King, upon which we are called to 
depend, completely destroys every apology for disobedi- 
ence that may be drawn from the weakness and depravity 
of our nature. We cannot be allowed to adopt the im- 
pious language of the Israelites, " If our transgressions 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



191 



and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how 
should we then live ? " This we are very ready to do, and 
to say, God has given us such propensities, and, therefore, 
cannot condemn us for indulging them. But the heart re- 
pels the argument even at the moment when the lips are 
giving it utterance. And the Gospel proves its futility by 
directing us to the strength which our King gives. If, in- 
deed, we attempt to subdue these propensities by our own 
power, without daily seeking his aid, then to a certainty 
our weakness will be proved by our failure. We shall 
never be able to make to ourselves a new heart and a new 
spirit, as we are commanded to do, unless we derive power 
from him. And as the renovation of the heart is a gra- 
dual thing, the grace that enables us to do it must be 
sought from him daily. The soul is as dependant upon 
him as the body, and it is, like the body, limited in its ca- 
pacity ; and neither will he give, nor are we capable of re- 
ceiving at once, a degree of grace sufficient to serve us for 
a lifetime any more than we are capable of receiving at 
once a quantity of nourishment that may be sufficient to 
sustain our bodies for a lifetime. The soul needs its daily 
bread not less than the body. 

But then we know that our King is ever ready to be- 
stow upon us the grace and the power that may be neces- 
sary for the supply of our present wants. We are assured 
of this by his own holy word, and by the fact that to many 
has he given — to many who wait upon him is he now giv- 
ing — that continual supply. The prophets, apostles, and 
martyrs, were just such men as we are, — as corrupted and 
as weak by nature ; and as incapable of doing or thinking 
anything good of themselves. " By the grace of God, I 
am what I am," said Paul, and all that are now in the 
kingdom of heaven will readily admit, nay, glory to record, 
that it was the grace of God alone that fitted them for that 
happy state, and with feelings of heartfelt gratitude will 
say, — " Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy 
name give glory, for thy mercy and for thy truth's sake." 



192 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



Now, we have the same access to the fountain of wisdom 
and power that they had : and if we be equally diligent in 
seeking, we have no room whatever to doubt that we shall 
be equally successful in obtaining. " The Lord's hand is 
not shortened, that he cannot save ; nor his ear heavy, 
that he cannot hear." He who commands our obedience 
knows well our weakness. He issues his commands not- 
withstanding ; because he has put into our hands the 
means of obtaining power, so that we are inexcusable if 
we obey not. He who is conscious of his own weakness, 
if he really wishes to succeed in being delivered from the 
power of sin, will habitually rely upon the power of the 
Saviour. He will meet temptations as David met Goliath, 
" In the name of the Lord," knowing that the reason why 
so many fail is, because they forget that their strength 
comes from above, and, therefore, are not sufficiently dili- 
gent and earnest in seeking it. When we leave off com- 
munion with him, or, what is the same thing, when our 
prayers degenerate into cold formality, we necessarily lose 
our strength, and become as a branch cut off from the 
trunk, from which it derived all its fruitfulness. He never 
gives us so much power as to render us independent upon 
his daily aid. We, therefore, err dangerously, when we 
attempt to make any progress in the Christian life, with- 
out doing so in entire dependence upon his aid, who alone 
is King over all our foes. The example of Peter should 
teach even the best not to be too confident in their own 
powers, and should make " him that thinketh he standeth 
take heed lest he fall." 

Since our power is in the hands of our King alone, we 
ought equally to avoid despondency and presumption. We 
ought never to fear any temptation that we meet with in 
the path of duty, being confident that he will never call us 
to any duty without giving us strength to perform it. To 
avoid a trial to which we are plainly called, is to distrust 
either the truth or the power of our Saviour. And ho 
who, in the strength of the Son of Man, shrinks not from 



cimrsT our king. 



193 



encountering a fiery furnace, or a den of lions, will always 
find that he has chosen a safer path than he who. like 
Jonah, endeavours to escape a disagreeable duty. But we 
ought, on the other hand, always to avoid temptations, 
when we can do so consistently with our duty ; for our 
King has promised no assistance to those who rashly run 
into danger that he calls them not to meet. Our Lord 
himself has taught us this by his own example. He would 
neither, on the one hand, distrust God, by changing stones 
into bread ; nor, on the other, tempt him, by needlessly 
throwing himself from the top of the temple. And the 
Israelites afford us an example of both errors. When God 
commanded them to enter in and possess the land of Ca- 
naan, they distrusted him, and refused to go ; and then 
their presumption rose in proportion to their former de- 
spondency, and they went up in opposition to his command, 
and were defeated. If we own Christ as our King, then let 
us obey him, neither doubting his power to cany on unto 
perfection the work of our sanctification ; nor yet making 
that power a pretence for our own want of care and vigi- 
lance, by expecting it to deliver us from the effects of our 
own rashness and presumption, or to carry us onward in 
our heavenward course, while we are not labouring to 
" work out our own salvation with fear and trembling." 

Another duty which we owe to our King is, to confide 
in his goodness. It is for the purpose of delivering us out 
of the hand of all our enemies, and of promoting our wel- 
fare, that the Mediator is exalted to the throne of the uni- 
verse, and appointed the sole disposer of every event in 
which we are concerned. We cannot for a moment doubt 
that he is abundantly able to give us every thing neces- 
sary for our happiness. He may, indeed, take such steps 
with regard to us, as may, in our superficial view, be cal- 
culated to subvert, rather than promote our welfare. But 
we may surely believe, that, as he is wiser than we are, 
and knows much better than we do what is proper for us, 
so he is also full of goodness, and can derive no pleasure from 



194 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



our pains, and will, therefore, never require us to do, or to 
suffer, any thing that is not for our profit. It is the duty 
of a King to protect his subjects ; and we cannot, without 
impiety, doubt that Christ will perform his duty. After 
all the proofs of kindness which he has given, nothing can 
be more offensive than still to distrust him. He has given 
us these proofs of his love to little purpose, if we u faint when 
we are rebuked of him," and, when he tries us, presently 
conclude that he has forsaken us. This is a sin for which 
Israel was often reproved. " Why sayest thou, O Jacob, 
and speakest, O Israel, my way is hid from the Lord, and 
my judgment is passed over from my God ?" " But Zion 
said, The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath for- 
gotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that 
she should not have compassion on the son of her womb ? 
yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." And 
surely, if we distrust our King, who assumed our nature, 
and submitted to our infirmities, that we might be the 
more certainly assured of his sympathy, we can have less 
excuse than Israel had. There is no duty more frequently 
inculcated upon us than this, of confiding in the goodness 
of our Ruler, — none of which more examples are recorded 
for our imitation. If, then, we should be placed in a si- 
tuation, in which our hearts are ready to fail, let us think 
of these examples ; of Abraham, who " staggered not at 
the promise of God," however unlikely its fulfilment ap- 
peared ; of David, who, when in distress, still said, " When 
my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will 
take me up ;" of Asaph, who, when tempted to suspect 
that the mercy of God was clean gone, that his promise 
had failed, and that he had forgotten to be gracious, yet 
in the end said, "This is my infirmity;" of the apostles, 
who, though tried with so many evils, yet never question- 
ed the faithfulness or goodness of their King, but could all 
adopt the language of Paul, "lam persuaded that neither 
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers^ 
nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor 



CHRIST OUR KLNG. 



195 



depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us 
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." If, 
therefore, we be visited with severe trials, let us not hasti- 
ly say with Jacob, u All these things are against us ;" for, 
if our distrust do not lead us to take improper means to 
escape from them, we shall find that all these things are, 
in reality, working together for our good. If we knew that 
an earthly king, or any man of great power, loved us with 
all the affection of a brother, we should feel perfectly se- 
cure, with regard to all the events of life. We may surely 
place at least as much confidence in him, who, though King 
of Kings, and Lord of Lords, yet is " a friend who sticketh 
closer than a brother." On the mountain of transfigura- 
tion, Peter said, " Lord, it is good for us to be here," and 
there he wished to build tabernacles for a permanent abode. 
But the Lord, who knew much better than Peter what was 
good for them, knew well that that state of enjoyment was 
not good, as a permanent condition in this world, but good 
only as an encouragement to fit them for sustaining the 
labours and trials, which are necessary for man here be- 
low. And nobly did they prove, in their after conduct, 
how well they had learned the lesson ; with what a simple 
and unreserved faith they could commit themselves to 
Christ, for time and for eternity. Destitute of every 
earthly comfort, they were yet the happiest of men. Look 
at Tiberius, with all the resources of the Roman empire at 
his command, apparently free from any thing that could 
give him the slightest uneasiness, yet writing to their se- 
nate in such terms as these : — " Conscript Fathers, what I 
should write to you at this time, or how I should write, or 
what I should not write, may all the gods confound me, 
worse than I feel that I am already confounded, if I can 
tell." 1 Look, on the other hand, to the apostles, treated as 
the " offscourings of all things," " set forth last as a spec- 

1 Quid scribam vobis, patres conscripti, ant qnomodo scribam, ant quid 
omnino non scribam hoc tempore, Dii me deoeque pejus perdant, quam perire 
me quotidie sentio, si scio.— Taciti Annal. Lib. vi. Cap. 6. 



196 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



tacle to the world, to angels, and to men ;" how complete- 
ly they were fortified against all the assaults of this world ; 
look, for example, to Paul and Silas, thrust, in a strange 
city, into the innermost prison, and their feet made fast in 
the stocks. Can men be placed in more depressing cir- 
cumstances ? Truly, if in this World only they had hope, 
they would have been, of all men, most miserable. Yet, 
while the Roman Emperor was trembling, he knew not 
why, upon his throne, their feelings burst forth in songs of 
thanksgiving and praise. Is there on record a more de- 
lightful, or a more affecting, proof of the happiness of be- 
ing able completely to detach ourselves from this world, 
and commit ourselves to the care and keeping of our King, 
than this? u And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and 
sang praises unto God : and the prisoners heard them." I 
cannot dwell upon the subject, and, therefore, can only 
say, that if we possess not the same power of rejoicing in 
the Lord, under the most adverse circumstances, it is sim- 
ply because we do not live up to our privileges ; do not 
detach ourselves, as completely as they did, from all de- 
pendence upon the world ; but live only partly by faith, 
and partly by sight. That this is unreasonable, how diffi- 
cult soever it may be for us depraved creatures to escape 
it, is easily proved. We can trust Christ with our im- 
mortal souls, and with our eternal concerns ; is it not then 
unreasonable to refuse to trust him with our temporal in- 
terests ? We profess to rely upon Christ to assign us our 
eternal abode by the river of the water of life, and 
to feed us with the fruits of the tree of life ; and we pro- 
fess to believe, that all the vivifying and cheering effi- 
cacy of that river, and of these fruits, is derived from him 
alone ; and yet we can fear, and doubt, and distrust him 
with regard to matters of infinitely inferior importance ! 
When Peter, after being called to come to our Lord on the 
water, began to sink, and cried out in terror, he met with 
the just rebuke, u O thou of little faith, wherefore didst 
thou doubt ?" How often do we still more deeply deserve 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



197 



the same rebuke ! A want of that simple, unhesitating re- 
liance upon the power and faithfulness of our King, 
forms one of the most effectual impediments in the way, 
both of our comfort, and of our advancement in the 
Christian life. 

Another duty that we owe to our King is, to preserve 
the peace of his kingdom. In all kingdoms men are re- 
strained, by proper laws, from invading the person, pro- 
perty, or reputation of others ; and without such laws no 
community could exist. And wherever these laws are 
disregarded, and men are divided into factions and parties, 
it is obvious to every one how much the strength of that 
kingdom must be weakened. The subjects of Christ's 
kingdom are commanded to love one another, and that 
even as Christ has loved them. Had this law been al- 
ways acted upon, it is not easy to estimate the happiness 
of the effect that would have been produced. And the miser- 
able effects that proceedfrom the dissensions among Christ's 
subjects, and the weakness that has been introduced into 
his kingdom, by its being divided into so many different 
parties, need not be pointed out. Christ's kingdom has 
thus been rent, and its peace destroyed, by the pride of 
men, who, having exalted their own opinion upon some in- 
different matter, into an article of fundamental importance, 
have renounced the communion of all who refuse to adopt 
the same notion. And whenever communion among 
Christians is broken off, a heavy weight of guilt attaches 
to that party which causes the schism. In order to avoid 
this guilt, every disciple of Jesus ought to be very cautious 
in refusing to hold communion with a fellow-subject, lest, 
when both parties stand before their King, this refusal be 
decided to have proceeded from no sufficient cause. Even 
the errors of Christians afford no just ground of separating 
from their communion, excepting in one of these two cases, 
— either when they err fundamentally, and, by so doing, 
cease to be Christians ; in which case, their communion is 
in reality no communion, and in renouncing it we make 



198 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



no schism ; — or when, supposing their errors to be of a 
less important nature, they require us distinctly and for- 
mally to profess our approbation of those errors against 
our own convictions ; in which case, we cannot hold com- 
munion with them, without being hypocrites, and are bound 
to separate from them ; but the guilt of the schism rests 
with them. But to separate from the communion of men 
whom we believe to be true Christians, merely because, on 
some points of inferior moment, they maintain opinions 
different from our own, — while they do not require us to 
adopt or profess these opinions, — is a degree of presump- 
tion and arrogance which it is hard to reconcile with the 
spirit of genuine Christianity. Surely he has much need 
to inquire what he can offer to his judge as an apology for 
his conduct, who has burst asunder the Redeemer's per- 
fect bond of charity, and cast away that cord of love, by 
which the great Head of the Church has united all the dif- 
ferent members of his mystical body in the closest inti- 
macy ; who has by his conduct declared, that, unless he 
himself be the head, he will be no part of the body ; and 
who, refusing to acknowledge the disciples of Christ as his 
fellow-subjects, has renounced their communion, unless 
they would renounce every opinion which he does not ap- 
prove, and adopt, on his authority, terms of communion 
which Christ never appointed. 

The peace and unity of Christ's kingdom are infringed, 
not merely by the open interruption of communion among 
his subjects, but in a way no less offensive, by those who, 
while they maintain external communion, are not at all 
united in spirit, but entertain toward each other the most 
unchristian feelings. It is a fearful thing to see men sit- 
ting down at the same communion table, who entertain 
toward each other feelings so hostile, that they would re- 
fuse to exchange the common courtesies of civil life, or to 
sit down together at the same board of common hospita- 
lity. Shall we eat the body, and drink the blood, of our 
crucified Redeemer with men, with whom we would not 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



199 



participate at the same table, in the common bounties of 
providence, and yet be guiltless? Impossible. For what, in 
this case, is oiir external communion? It is the solemn pro- 
fession of a falsehood, — a profession, before God, that we 
love as brethren, for whom we are ready, if need be, to 
lay down our lives, those whom in reality we are regard- 
ing with feelings of enmity and bitterness. We ought to 
remember that the Church, like the grave, levels all 
ranks, and extinguishes all human distinctions. " The 
small and the great are there, and the servant is free from 
his master : " and unless we can repress every feeling in- 
consistent with this truth, and enter the Church with all 
the cordiality of affection for om* fellow- worshippers, we 
ought not to enter it at all ; nor profess our unity with 
those with whom we are perhaps in a state of active en- 
mity. 

The peace of Christ's kingdom is also often disturbed, 
and a way prepared for endless divisions, by the manner 
in which disputes about controverted points are managed. 
There is no impropriety in discussing the doctrines of 
Christianity. Much advantage may be derived from such 
discussion. But then the discussion ought to be conducted 
upon Christian principles. To quote from an opponent 
language that he never used, for the purpose of burden- 
ing him with the guilt of impieties which he can appeal to 
God that he never either entertained or uttered, — to at- 
tach to his language, even when fairly quoted, a meaning 
which it is perfectly clear that it was never intended to 
express, nor, by any fair construction, can be made to ex- 
press, — to manufacture quotations out of respectable, but 
not easily accessible writers, in order to make them ap- 
pear to support tenets which they most cordially detest, 
and most unequivocally condemn, are arts which so com- 
pletely outrage, I say not Christian principle, but common 
honesty, and common decency, that even the most viru- 
lent Sectarianism has but rarely stooped to employ them. 
As the number of those who can adopt such arts can be 



200 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



but small, in any age, I need not stop to show how ut- 
terly inconsistent they are with the peace of Christ's king- 
dom. A more frequent error in this way is to advance 
our opinions, not with the firmness of men confident in 
the truth, but with an arrogance of dogmatism, and an 
implied, if not expressed, contempt of all others ; as if 
truth had never visited the earth till we brought it, which 
associates our opinions, even if correct, with a feeling of 
disgust ; and which, if they happen to be the result of the 
most palpable and astounding ignorance, deepens that 
disgust to a pitch which it is useless to attempt to ex- 
press. It is doubtless men who thus force their tenets 
upon us, whom the apostle has in his eye, when, exhort- 
ing us to be at peace with all men, he annexes the condi- 
tions, — " if it be possible," and u as far as in you lieth," 
well knowing that when we are imperiously required to 
adopt the most foolish and the most fatal notions, under 
the penalty of being denounced as all that is ignorant, 
and all that is perverse, and all that is unchristian, to be 
at peace with men who thus assail us is impossible, — 
nay, that in such a case, peace with those who are openly 
subverting the foundations of our faith would be trea- 
son against truth ; — an unprincipled abandonment of that 
faith for which we are required earnestly to contend. 
But in entering into such contention, which may often 
be a most sacred duty, we ought to consider, not 
merely whether we have sufficient ability, but what is of 
equal importance, and perhaps of still rarer occurrence, 
whether we possess a sufficient command of temper for it. 
The man who cannot bear to have the provoking epithets 
which adorn the controvertist's vocabulary applied to him, 
without being tempted to adopt them, — who cannot unite 
mildness of disposition with active zeal for the truth, nor 
inflict wholesome castigation upon its most furious or its 
most petulant opposers, without losing his temper, ought to 
avoid all disputes. The disputant ought, with the greatest 
caution, to guard his zeal from being mingled with the un- 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



201 



hallowed fire of human passion, remembering that " the 
wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God." 

Another duty that we owe to our King is, to extend his 
kingdom. That this is our duty hardly needs to be proved. 
We are commanded to exhibit in our conduct the excel- 
lence of the principles of Christianity, in such a manner 
as to allure others to cultivate them, — to make " our 
light so to shine before men, that they may see our good 
works, and glorify our Father who is in heaven.'* We 
are soldiers of the Lord Jesus Christ ; and as a soldier 
considers any expression of disrespect towards his king 
as a personal insult to himself, and will maintain, at all 
hazards, the honour of the standard under which he 
fights ; even so will the Christian soldier be always ready 
to repress any insult that may be offered in his presence 
to the Captain of his Salvation, and will maintain the 
transcendent excellencies of the King whom he serves* 
and the glories of that kingdom which it is his duty and 
his delight to defend and to increase. As a good soldier, 
he will do every thing in his power to promote the de- 
signs of his leader : and if it be the end of God's moral 
government to put an end to sin, and establish righteous- 
ness, — if the hosts of heaven be employed in promoting 
this end, he will consider it as the highest honour to be a 
fellow- worker, in however narrow a sphere, in furthering 
the same happy design. To rescue an immortal being from 
the dominion of sin, and make him a subject of the King of 
kings, he will consider as a nobler victory than any that the 
historian has recorded, or the poet sung. Well may the 
soldier of Jesus Christ leave to the great and the mighty, 
the wretched boast of having written their title to celebrity 
in the blood of their fellow- creatures, — of having made the 
widow's tear and the orphan's cry the heralds of their fame, 
— of having exhibited the proofs of their prowess in cities 
overthrown and provinces laid waste. More soothing to 
him will be the reflection, that he has wielded, with courage 
and success, those weapons which, though not carnal. ki are 

i2 



202 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



mighty, through God, to the pulling down of strongholds," 
— that he has been enabled to repel the assaults of the 
enemies of Christianity, to subdue them to the truth, and 
to cheer and to strengthen his feeble fellow-soldiers, — 
that, united with angels as a messenger of mercy to men, 
he has been able to alleviate the load of human guilt and 
misery, and to increase the sum of human virtue and hap- 
piness. Victories that are obtained over ignorance and 
guilt may pass without notice in the world, or the notice 
which they attract may be of a very unenviable kind ; 
but they are recorded in an imperishable register ; they 
are a cause of joy in heaven, and will be remembered 
with honour when every earthly monument of power and 
splendour shall have mouldered in the dust, together with 
the hands that reared them. If ever enthusiasm be ami- 
able or useful, then surely it is so when it regards the 
noblest object that ever awakened the desires, or called 
forth the exertions of any human being ; and the Chris- 
tian may be permitted to indulge no ordinary degree of 
ardour, in the prosecution of a design, for the accomplish- 
ment of which the Son of God did not hesitate to die. If 
he whose heart exults amidst the spirit-stirring sights and 
sounds of war, whose courage is only wound up to a higher 
pitch of intensity by scenes of carnage, and by all the engines 
of death in active and fatal operation, who glories in the 
midst of danger, and rushes forward, with irresistible ar- 
dour, to snatch the wreath of victory, through the shouts 
of the warrior, and garments rolled in blood, — if he excite 
our admiration, — is the same ardour to be viewed with 
sentiments the very reverse of admiration, — to be stigma- 
tized as the effect of a weak mind and a heated imagina- 
tion, when it is felt in reference to an object of infinitely 
greater importance than any for which even kings con- 
tended or warriors bled ? If Alexander wept at the tomb 
of Achilles, to think that he himself had no Homer to ce- 
lebrate his deeds, and perpetuate his fame ; is the Chris- 
tian to be reproached if he feel, — or is he not rather to be 



CHRIST OUR KING. 



203 



considered as destitute of the Spirit of his Master if he do 
not feel, — an irresistible desire to achieve those victories 
which, if they find no place in the poet's song, will be ce- 
lebrated throughout eternity in the anthems of heaven ? 
If, then, we regard either the authority or example of our 
heavenly King, — if we would wish, when our days are at 
an end, to say that they have not been spent in vain, and 
that we have not been useless members of his kingdom, 
nor careless of its prosperity, — if we would wish to be 
able to say, when we stand before his judgment-seat, 
that as he was, so have we been in the world, — if we be 
ambitious for the honour that perisheth not, and for a 
crown that doth not fade, — if we wish to associate at last 
with the glorious men who have instructed the Church by 
their wisdom, adorned it by their holiness, and cemented 
its foundations with their blood, then let us exert our- 
selves by example, by instruction, by every means in our 
power, to promote the prosperity, and extend the limits of 
that kingdom into which we ourselves have, by the grace 
of God, been brought. For " they that be wise shall 
shine as the brightness of the firmament, and they that 
turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever." 



CHAPTER V. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 

We have thus traced Christ in the discharge of all his 
offices of Prophet, Priest, and King. For the discharge of 
the whole of them, his death, and consequently his Incar- 
nation, was essentially necessary. He discharged the du- 
ties resulting from these offices from the beginning. He 
discharged them all during his sojourn on earth. But we 
have seen that, without dying, he could not fully have dis- 
charged the duties of any one of his offices. And at every 
step we have seen the absolute necessity of the total ab- 
sence from him, of any thing to which the terms fallen and 
sinful could, in any sense, be applied. We have seen, upon 
the clearest and most indisputable evidence, that had he 
been fallen and sinful, his death could have afforded us no 
more instruction, as to the character of God, than the death 
of any other man, — that it could have been no satisfaction 
to the Divine justice for our sins, — and that it. must have 
been the very reverse of a triumph over death, and him 
that had the power of death, that is, the devil. It clearly 
appears, that had he been fallen and sinful, neither could 
his life nor his death have revealed to us the perfections of 
God in any other way, though, perhaps, in a somewhat 
higher degree, than the life and death of any other good but 
sinful man, who has by grace been made a partaker of the 
Divine nature. Neither in his life nor in his death could 
he have taken our sicknesses, and borne our infirmities, or 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



205 



have offered up that resistless intercession, " Father, Iivill } 
that they also whom thou hast given me be with me where 
I am." Neither in his life nor in his death could he have 
manifested to all the overthrow of Satan's kingdom, nor 
have made his victory the earnest and assurance of ours. 

I have already had occasion to observe that in Christ 
these three offices were never separated ; that he at all 
times possessed all the fulness of the power, and performed 
all the duties pertaining to them all. If there ever was a 
moment in which he was destitute of any one power be- 
longing to any one of his offices, then at that moment he 
was destitute of all the powers belonging to them all ; and 
was neither Prophet, Priest, nor King at all. This remark 
may at first sight appear to be a matter of little import- 
ance ; it is, however, in reality one of the most important 
principles in theology, that Christ never could possess any 
one of the powers of any one of his offices, without possess- 
ing all the plenitude of the powers belonging to them all. 
To deny this, and to maintain, as is strenuously done by 
the new theology, that he was first anointed as Prophet, 
next as Priest, and then as King, is, as I shall presently 
have occasion to show, to deny that he is a person at all ; 
and to reduce him to the state of a mere attribute or influ- 
ence. If Jesus Christ was at one time anointed a Prophet, 
at another time anointed a Priest, and at another a King, 
then he may be the personified power of God, or wisdom of 
God, but a distinct person in the Holy Trinity he is not, 
and cannot be. That he saved men from the beginning, 
and, therefore, from the beginning was possessed of all the 
powers and prerogatives of all his offices, I have repeatedly 
been called upon to notice. If he was capable of receiving 
any one of the powers of any one of his offices, without at 
the same time receiving all the powers of them all, then it 
may be that he was a mere man acting under a Divine in- 
fluence, but, on this supposition, totally destitute of any 
Divine personality ; and, consequently, that the doctrine of 
the Trinity is very much what Socinians call it will pre- 



206 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



sently appear. A few remarks on the inseparable union of 
his different offices will be previously proper. 

As in the Trinity we ascribe to each particular person 
some particular part in the work of our salvation, more 
especially and immediately than to any of the other per- 
sons, yet would deem it impious to suppose that there is 
any one act of any of them in which they do not all equally 
concur ; even so, while one portion of Christ's work is 
ascribed, and properly so, to one of his offices, more espe- 
cially and immediately than to any other of his offices, yet 
would we deem it impious to suppose that Christ was ever 
divided, or that any one of these offices was ever separated 
from the others, or was ever exercised apart from, and ex- 
clusively of, the others. When speaking of the two natures 
united in his person, we sometimes ascribe one thing more 
particularly to the one nature, and another thing to the 
other nature, — and often improperly enough, — yet would 
consider it inconsistent with piety to forget that there is 
but one Christ, to whose undivided person every character- 
istic, and every action, is to be ascribed, whether more pe- 
culiarly appropriate to the one nature or to the other ; 
even so, when speaking of his different offices, we ascribe, 
and properly ascribe, one action, or one characteristic, to 
one office more peculiarly than to another, yet ought we 
never to forget that in his one person the three offices were 
inseparably united. Throughout his life these offices were 
inseparably combined, and were uniformly manifested to- 
gether. For what is it that gives to his every prophetic 
act, by which he manifests the Father, a claim upon our 
reverential regard far beyond aught that is due to the phi- 
losopher, the sage, or the modern theologian ? Is it not 
this, that his every prophetic act combines with it all the 
sacredness of his sacerdotal character, and all the autho- 
rity of his regal power ; so that, if we refuse to be taught 
by him, we cut ourselves off from all participation in his 
sacerdotal grace, and expose ourselves to be crushed be- 
neath the weight of that iron rod by which he will dash his 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



207 



enemies to pieces ? Hence it is said, that " the people were 
astonished at his doctrine, for he taught them as one hav- 
ing authority." And when he performs any sacerdotal act, 
as when he said to the sick of the palsy, " Thy sins be for- 
given thee," is not this also a prophetic act, manifesting the 
grace and the power of the Godhead ? and is it not an effi- 
cacious act, simply because what, as a Priest, he has grace 
to promise, as a King he has power to bestow ? And his 
every regal act is performed for the purpose of giving to his 
prophetic revelations, and to his sacerdotal grace, that 
power and efficacy which they could never otherwise pos- 
sess. And the offices thus united in him through his whole- 
life were not separated at his close. His sufferings in the 
garden, and on the cross, not only constituted a perfect sa- 
tisfaction to Divine justice for our sins, but found, at the 
same time, by far the most impressive and instructive por- 
tion of his prophetic manifestation of the Divine character, 
and also the most victorious and triumphant exhibition of 
his regal power, when the serpent's head was bruised, and 
principalities and powers defeated and triumphed over. 
Hence, while sacrifice, in general, presented a type of his 
dying for sin, on the great day of atonement two goats 
were provided to give a more complete representation of 
his work on the cross. While one was sacrificed as an 
atonement, another carried away the sins of the people in- 
to a land not inhabited, where they might be heard of no 
more. Even so, our Lord did not merely shed his blood 
for our sins, but he took them upon him, and carried them 
away into the land of forge tfulness, and buried them for 
ever. 

It would require a much more lengthened detail than, I 
conceive, can be at all necessary on so plain a point, to en- 
ter into all the Scripture proof that might easily be pro- 
duced, in order to prove that Christ was at all times truly 
and fully Prophet, Priest, and King ; and that the func- 
tions of all these offices were combined in every act. Two 
texts only I shall quote, " Being made perfect, he became 



208 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." 1 
Now, he is not perfected as a Saviour, nor can be the au- 
thor of salvation, through the perfection of any one of his offi- 
cial characters, but through the perfection of them all. And 
as we are informed, both in the preceding verse, and in a 
previous part of the same epistle, that he was " made per- 
fect through sufferings," it follows, that in the depth of his 
sufferings, not one, but the whole of his official characteris- 
tics had their most perfect exhibition. It is also said, " By 
one offering, he hath perfected for ever them that are 
sanctified." 2 Now, as he does not, and cannot, perfect 
them that are sanctified, by the exercise of one, but by the 
exercise of all his offices, it follows, that in that one offer- 
ing, by which they that are sanctified are made perfect, 
they were all combined. 

There is between the different offices of Christ a real 
and essential distinction ; but it is a distinction similar to 
that between justification and sanctification. These are per- 
fectly distinct and different things ; but in their communi - 
cation, and in their possession, they are never separated. 
Even so, the offices of Christ are perfectly distinct, but, in 
their exercise, are never separated. No error can be more 
fatal than what I conceive to be by no means an unfre- 
quent practical error, to suppose that Christ may be divid- 
ed, and that we may enjoy the blessings resulting from the 
exercise of one of his offices, while we have neither part nor 
lot in the other ; to suppose, for example, that we may be 
pardoned by him as our Priest, while we are neither taught 
by him as our Prophet, nor saved from sin by him as a King. 
The theology which teaches that Christ was anointed to his 
different offices at different times, teaches very clearly, at 
the same time, that this fatal error has a solid foundation in 
truth. But neither in the exercise of his offices on earth, 
nor in the application of the fruits of them to the believer 
on earth, can there be any separation, though there is a 
wide and palpable distinction. And in proof of this, I may 

1 Heb. v. 9. 2 Heb. x. 14. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



209 



refer to the experience of the believer, an argument which, 
in this case, I hold to be perfectly legitimate. If this 
should happily be the character of my reader, he will be 
able to say, that he never makes any thing like a separa- 
tion between the persons of the Trinity ; never feels any 
emotion, nor cherishes any sentiment towards one of these 
persons, in which the others have no share. He has per- 
haps been attending the public ministrations of God's 
word, — or has been joining in his solemn ordinances, — or 
has been devoting an hour to private meditation and 
prayer, and, like Nathanael under the fig-tree, has been 
holding communion with God where no eye, save that of 
God, was upon him ; and God has met him, and blessed 
him. He has found him whom he sought, and feels that 
his faith is strengthened, and his hopes enlivened, and his 
humility deepened, and his charity enlarged, and his soul 
enabled to exult in the joy of God's salvation. And when 
this does happen, he never doubts that it is by the influ- 
ence of the Holy Ghost, — that it is the Spirit of promise 
sealing him to the day of redemption, and enriching him 
with a foretaste of his future inheritance. But are his 
gratitude and his praise specifically directed to the Holy 
Ghost ? No : but knowing that this is the Father cheer- 
ing him with the manifestations of his lov^e, — that this is 
the Son giving to the Spirit the things that are his, to 
show to the believer, and enriching him by the com- 
munications of his grace, through the communion of the 
Holy Ghost, his gratitude and his praise ascend, without 
being more specifically directed to one person than to 
another, to the holy and undivided and indivisible Jeho- 
vah. Even so, when in the life and in the death of 
Christ, he has learned to know him " whom to know is 
life eternal;" and when he has "washed his robes and 
made them white in the blood of the Lamb that was 
slain ;" and when, looking to the Saviour's power, he can 
say, U I can do all things through Christ who strengthen- 
ed me ; " — and when he is thus enjoying the blessings re- 



210 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



suiting from all the offices of Christ, and rejoicing in him 
who is made of God unto him " wisdom, and righteous- 
ness, and sanctification, and redemption ;" and feels that 
he is " complete in him who is the Head of all principality 
and power," is it as his Prophet, as his Priest, or as his 
King, separately, that he rejoices in him ? No : for it is 
not in the exercise of any one of the Redeemer's offices 
that his completeness stands, but in the exercise of them 
all ; and in such an hour no such distinction is thought of, 
but he rejoices in him who is Prophet, Priest, and King in 
one, — in whom there is no division and no defect. He 
rejoices in him who is not now a Prophet, then a Priest, 
and at some other period either made, or to be made, a 
King ; but in him who is always Prophet, Priest, and 
King, — who is each in every act that he performed, and 
in every pang that he endured. 

Take away then from Christ, at any one period, any 
one of these offices, and you at the same time effectually 
divest him of the others. They are so interwoven, that 
neither in the exercise of the duties resulting from them, 
were they ever separated in Christ, nor in the enjoyment 
of the fruits which they produce in believers are they 
ever separated. If the different offices were assumed by 
the Mediator at very different times, then the man who, 
devoted to his sins, declares his reliance on the blood of 
Christ for the full and free forgiveness of all his sins, while 
he shows that he neither is, nor desires to be, separated 
from any one of them ; and the self-righteous man who 
tells us that being now instructed by Christ as his Pro- 
phet, and furnished with all necessary means of grace, he 
no longer feels any farther need of divine interference, but 
conceives that he can now justify and save himself, will 
each have it in his own power to show that his error is 
built upon a fundamental principle of the Gospel. 

But these errors, fatal as they are, are by no means the 
most fatal and deadly results that spring from the doctrine 
that our Lord was anointed at various times to his vari- 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



211 



ous offices. I need not stop to show how this notion as 
to our Lord's various anointings is connected with, and 
springs from, the tenet that his humanity was fallen and 
sinful ; for the writers who maintain the latter tenet 
openly avow and contend for the former, as indeed they 
must, for the one of necessity flows from the other. Let 
us look then at one or two more of the consequences to 
which these various anointings lead. We have just seen 
that they make a wide separation between the offices of 
Christ, and directly sanction the most ruinous practical 
errors. But they go much farther, and establish the 
Gnostic doctrine, which makes a separation between Jesus 
and Christ. The Doeetae, one class of Gnostics, maintain- 
ed that Jesus was a mere phantom, having the appear- 
ance of a man, but nothing more, and was assumed by 
Christ in order to render himself visible. Other classes of 
Gnostics admitted that Jesus was a real man, but main- 
tained that he was a mere man, and that Christ descend- 
ed upon him at his baptism by John in Jordan. Christ 
was, according to them, one of the iEons, who, descending 
upon the man Jesus, filled him with, or rather, through 
him exercised, all wisdom and power ; and at his cruci- 
fixion left him and returned to the Pleroma. They openly 
maintained, therefore, that Jesus and Christ were two 
persons as different as possible. 

Now, admit that our Lord was no Prophet until his bap- 
tism, and no Priest until his resurrection, and no King 
until his resurrection, or his second advent,— for that ap- 
pears to be a point not yet decided, — and the same sepa- 
ration between Jesus and Christ clearly and unavoidably 
follows. The Christ, or the Messiah, is the official appella- 
tion of our Lord, who is so called on account of his being 
anointed as the Prophet, Priest, and King of the human 
race ; anointed with all the fulness of the Holy Ghost, 
which was not given by measure to him. Now, if he was 
never anointed till his baptism, it is too plain to need, or 
even to admit of proof, that Jesus lived thirty years be- 



212 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



fore he was Christ at all. A more palpable" separation 
between Jesus and Christ no Gnostic ever did make, or 
was ever capable of making. I need not waste time in 
proving to any one, who has a Bible in his hand, how ut- 
terly repugnant this is, both to the spirit and to the very 
letter of Scripture, which speaks repeatedly, and in ex- 
press terms, of the birth of Christ; a mode of speaking 
totally inconsistent with the tenet that he was born a 
fallen sinful man, and was not Christ till he was anointed 
at his baptism. 

This palpable separation between Jesus and Christ, which 
so directly and inevitably results from the fundamental 
tenets of the new theology, cannot be evaded by saying, 
as the revivers of these tenets do say, and sincerely enough 
I am willing to admit, that they do believe that Jesus was, 
at his conception, anointed with all the fulness of the 
Holy Ghost. For if he received all the fulness of the 
Holy Ghost at his conception, then he could not receive at 
his baptism more than all that fulness, that is, more than 
he possessed already: unless, indeed, it be maintained, 
that having received the fulness of the Holy Ghost at his 
conception, he had lost it before his baptism, and needed 
to have it restored. This notion, no doubt, is in perfect 
unison with the tenet, which is openly avowed, that he had 
different measures of the Holy Ghost at different times, 
but totally inconsistent, I apprehend, with the fact of his 
having been anointed with all the fulness of the Holy Ghost 
in his conception. Besides, it is of no use whatever to say 
that we believe him to have been anointed with all the 
fulness of the Holy Ghost in his conception, unless we can 
show some purpose which was answered by that anoint- 
ing. And on the principles of the new theology, I cannot 
form the most distant idea of any one purpose that could 
be answered by that anointing. Many of the Ebionites, a 
Gnostic sect, believed in the miraculous conception of 
Jesus. They nevertheless, however, believed him to be a 
mere man, and that he became Christ only at his baptism. 



GENERAL REMARKS, 



213 



In this case, the belief in the miraculous conception was a 
mere gratuitous article in their creed. It was of no use 
whatever in their theology, and, therefore, gradually sank 
into oblivion among them, so that the greater part of them 
at least renounced it, and became mere Cerinthians. 1 And 
the anointing of our Lord with all the fulness of the Holy 
Ghost in his conception, is an equally gratuitous article in 
the creed of those who maintain, that he was conceived and 
born a fallen sinful man. For, besides that it stands in 
direct and irreconcileable contradiction to the doctrine that 
he was anointed with the Holy Ghost at his baptism, 
there is not one purpose that it can answer in their creed, 
and will, therefore, deliver their system from a grievous 
incumbrance if it be altogether dismissed. 

It is equally useless to say, that the anointing with the 
Holy Ghost was necessary to constitute him man, — that by 
it a body was prepared for him. For if it was fallen sinful 
flesh that he took, the miraculous conception was totally 
unnecessary. And that the flesh which he took was fallen 
and sinful, and that it continued to be so during the whole 
of his life on earth, is the grand fundamental tenet of the 
new theology. Xow, he could surely have taken fallen sin- 
ful flesh without any extraordinary operation of the Holy 
Ghost ; for that would just have been the character of his 
flesh had he descended from Adam, like all other men, by 
ordinary generation. If the design of the Word was to be 
made such flesh as this, then the interposition of the Holy 
Ghost would have defeated the design ; for where he works 
all is perfect purity, and he would never have interposed 
his extraordinary agency to form flesh such as would, with 
unerring certainty, have been produced without such inter- 
position. 

As little can it avail to say, that the miraculous concep- 
tion was necessary to render him independent upon a Ee- 
deemer, as all other men are dependent upon him. For if 



1 See note G. Appendix. 



214 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



he was fallen and sinful, then he was not independent upon 
a Eedeemer ; but needed to be both redeemed and regene- 
rated. And, in point of fact, we are expressly taught that 
he did redeem his own creature substance ; and that sub- 
stance was just as much himself as his divinity was himself. 
And we are, moreover, taught that he actually was rege- 
nerated, — nay, that if he was more than a regenerated 
man he can be no Saviour of ours. The miraculous con- 
ception, then, which prevented him not from being born 
fallen and sinful, did not, and could not, exempt him from 
the necessity of being redeemed and regenerated ; and we 
are expressly taught that, in fact, he possessed no such 
exemption. The angel tells Mary that, in consequence of 
the coming of the Holy Ghost upon her, and the over- 
shadowing of the power of the Highest, the fruit of her 
womb was generated a u holy thing," and, consequently, 
could neither need nor be capable of regeneration. But 
the new theology teaches that he was generated a fallen 
sinful thing ; and both needed and received regeneration. 
We are assured that Jesus Christ was bom the M Son of 
God," and, therefore, never could be " born again." But 
that which was born fallen and sinful could not possibly 
be the Son of God without being " bom again ;" and even 
after the new birth could be the Son of God in no other 
sense than every regenerated man is his son. The theo- 
logy, therefore, which teaches that our Lord received, or 
was capable of receiving, the Holy Ghost at his baptism, 
does effectually separate between Jesus and Christ. 

But to revive the wretched follies of Gnosticism, which 
taught that difference between Jesus and Christ, which 
was merely a grosser and more aggravated form of that 
doctrine which, under the name of Nest onanism, at a later 
period rent the Church in pieces, is not the worst effect of 
the doctrine which teaches us that our Lord was anointed 
at his baptism as our Prophet, and at his resurrection as 
our Priest. The Gnostics admitted the personality of 
Christ ; but this doctrine effectually denies that he was a 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



215 



person at all, and reduces him to the rank of a mere attri- 
bute or influence, showing that he may be the personified 
power of God, or wisdom of God, but that a person he 
cannot be. For it is plain that a person could not be par- 
tially communicated to Jesus, but if communicated at all, 
must be completely and totally communicated. Of this 
the Gnostics were very well aware ; and, therefore, ac- 
knowledging the personality of Christ, they never dreamed 
of teaching that he was partly communicated to Jesus 
at one time and partly at another ; but considered him as 
at once taking up his abode in all his fulness in the man 
Jesus. But if he was a mere attribute or influence, then 
he might be communicated in all possible variety of de- 
grees, — might be given in such measure as to endue him, 
now with Prophetic, then with Sacerdotal, and finally with 
Kingly powers. And if our Lord was so anointed as to 
receive gradually, and at different times, the different 
powers belonging to his offices, then are we compelled to 
conclude that the man Christ Jesus was not the very Word 
made flesh, — the very soul and body of the Incarnate 
Word, but merely a man actuated and operated upon by 
a divine influence, beyond the usual lot of the children of 
men ; but at the same time as truly and as certainly a 
mere man as we are. Let the various anointings of our 
Lord to his various offices be admitted, and then that u all 
the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in him bodily," is so far 
from being a glorious truth, — a truth upon which thejreality 
of atonement, and the truth of every Christian doctrine 
depends, that it is a very easily demonstrable falsehood. 
A divine influence he possessed in a high degree ; of any 
divine personality he was as destitute as we are. Yet a 
doctrine so pregnant with utter ruin to every Christian 
principle, and to every Christian hope, is inculcated by men 
who do not at all disguise how much they feel themselves 
entitled to " despise others ;" and who, while they outrival 
the Gnostics in the irrationality of their tenets, outrival 
them also in their loud pretensions to superior illumination. 



216 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



In proof of the utterly antiehristian nature of any system 
of theology, we need no better evidence than the fact, that 
it teaches us that Christ was anointed at his baptism, 
which is Gnosticism ; and, especially, when that fact is 
given in the aggravated form which teaches us, that at his 
baptism he was anointed to only one of his offices, expect- 
ing, at a future period, the unction which was to invest 
him with the powers belonging to the others. That this 
tenet is totally subversive of Christianity, we have still 
better evidence than that resulting from the preceding dis- 
cussion,- — a discussion, however, which must be considered 
as decisive, because it consists not of any complicated pro- 
cess of reasoning, so much as of a statement of palpable 
and undeniable facts. We have the direct testimony of 
holy Scripture. Gnosticism was coeval with, and, indeed, 
among the Gentiles in general, somewhat prior to the 
preaching of the Gospel. The apostle John lived to see 
that wretched system producing the most disastrous and 
fatal results. He was inspired by the Holy Ghost to take 
up his pen in opposition to it. Besides the abundant and 
conclusive internal evidence of this fact, furnished by his 
first epistle itself, we have the express testimony of Ire- 
nasus, who learned it from Polycarp, the immediate disciple 
of John, and ordained by that apostle bishop of Smyrna. 
To quote the whole of the testimony afforded by that 
epistle against the supposition that Christ was anointed at 
his baptism, would be nearly to copy the whole epistle. A 
few verses it will be proper to give : — " Who is a liar, but 
he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ f He is antichrist, 
that denieth the Father and the Son." 1 " Whosoever will 
confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, 
and he in God." 2 " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the 
Christ is bom of God ; and every one that loveth him 
that begat, loveth him also that is begotten of him." 3 In 
these passages the apostle teaches very distinctly, first, 

1 1 John ii. 22. 2 Ibid. iv. 15. 3 Ibid. v. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



217 



that Jesus is the Son of God as well as Christ, whom they 
ailowed to be the Son of God, in a certain sense, and, 
therefore, that Jesus could not be either a mere phantom, 
as some classes of the Gnostics taught, nor a mere man, 
as others of them maintained, nor, I may fairly, and a for- 
tiori, add, a fallen sinful man, as is taught by those who 
have revived Gnosticism in more than all its original irra- 
tionality. He teaches also that Jesus is the Christ, these 
not being the names of two dhTerent individuals, but of one 
and the same, — and, consequently, that the Gnostics, in 
maintaining that Jesus was not the Christ before his bap- 
tism, were maintaining a doctrine directly antichristian. 
To say, then, that Jesus was anointed at his baptism, — 
that he then was constituted the Christ, as if he had not 
been always so, is the very thing that the apostle con- 
demns, and condemns in terms of no measured reprobation. 
And we cannot doubt that his reprobation would have 
been still more emphatic and more severe had he heard the 
doctrine, not only that Christ was anointed at his baptism, 
but that he was then only partially anointed, anointed 
only as our Prophet ; and that from time to time he con- 
tinued to receive fresh accessions to his Christhood, just 
as if it had ever been possible for him to be the Christ at 
all, without being fully and completely so ; or as if the 
Divinity in him was no person, but, as it is in us, an influ- 
ence which may be poured out upon us more or less abun- 
dantly at different times. If he condemns with such merit- 
ed severity the separation of Jesus from Christ, he would 
unquestionably have condemned, with a still more pointed 
severity, the still more fatal and impious doctrine which 
separates Christ from himself, and teaches that he was 
more the Christ at one period than he was at another, — a 
doctrine obviously and irreconcileably opposed to any idea 
of his Divine personality. 

There is another passage in the same epistle which it 
would be doing great injustice to my subject to omit. It 
is this, — u This is he that came by water and blood, even 

K 



218 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



Jesus Christ ; not by water only, but by water and blood ; 
and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the 
Spirit is truth." 1 It gives me great pleasure to be able 
to establish my own view of the apostle's doctrine, and 
also to present to the reader by far the best commen- 
tary on the verse just quoted that I have ever met with ; 
a commentary too which, in the present instance, will not 
be suspected of being got up for the occasion. I take it 
from one of the ablest works with which the present age 
has enriched the theological literature of England, and I 
persuade myself no reader will think the extract a line too 
long. 

" The fifth chapter begins with these words, — 6 Whoso- 
ever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God.' 
It will perhaps be allowed, that to be 4 born of God' means 
to be a Christian, to have that faith which Christ requires 
when he admits a person into his covenant. St John, 
therefore, here says, 4 Whosoever believeth that Jesus is 
the Christ,' has the true faith of a Christian ; from which 
it follows, that whosoever does not believe that Jesus is 
the Christ, has not the true faith of a Christian. Now, 
this was precisely the point which all the Gnostics, whether 
Cerinthians or Docetae, refused to believe. They would 
not say that Jesus is the Christ, at least they would not 
say that he was the Christ at his birth, or before his bap- 
tism. They held that Jesus was one person, and Christ 
another. The two were united for a time, when Christ 
had descended upon Jesus at his baptism ; but they had 
existed separately before his baptism, and they were again 
separated before his crucifixion. It was with good reason, 
therefore, that St John made this point the test of a 
Christian's belief : it was necessary for him to say ex- 
plicitly that Jesus is the Christ ; and St John is only pro- 
posing a similar test when he says, in the fifth 1 verse, 
4 Who is he that overcometh the world but he that believ- 



1 1 John v. 6. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



219 



eth that Jesns is the Son of God ?' In the fourth verse 
he had explained what he meant by overcoming the world. 
4 This is the victory,' he says, 4 that overcometh the world, 
even our faith.' So that to overcome the world, and to be 
born of God, are used by St John for the same thing, for 
the true belief which it is necessary for a Christian to 
hold. He tells us, therefore, that the true Christian must 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is the Son of 
God. The Gnostic would have said that Christ was 
united to Jesus at his baptism ; or he would have said, 
attaching his own meaning to the words, that Christ was 
the Son of God ; but St John rejected these imperfect and 
evasive confessions, and required the true Christian to say 
unequivocally that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus is 
the Son of God. He then continues, 4 This is he that 
came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ ; not by 
water only, but by water and blood ; and it is the Spirit 
that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.' The 
Gnostics, no doubt, had heard in the preaching of the 
apostles, and by this time they had seen it in the written 
Gospels, that when Jesus rose out of the water the Spirit 
descended upon him like a dove, and a voice was heard, 
which said, 4 This is my beloved Son.' This was the 
foundation upon which the Gnostics built their doctrine 
concerning Christ. They held that the Spirit, which de- 
scended like a dove, was one of the JEons called Christ : 
that Jesus went into the water, either a delusive phantom 
or a mere human being, but that when he came out of the 
water Christ was residing in him. St John denies this in 
the verse which I have read : 4 This is he,' he says, 4 that 
came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ;' not Jesus 
only, nor Christ only, but Jesus Christ ; not two separated 
beings united for a time, but one person. Nor did this one 
person, Jesus Christ, come by water only, or in the water 
only, when he was baptized ; but he had been come long 
before by blood when he was first made flesh and dwelt 
among us. And as to the Spirit which descended like a 



220 



GENERAL REMAKES. 



dove, and which was said by the Gnostics to be the iEon 
Christ, then for the first time coming down from heaven, 
St John goes on to say, 4 It is the Spirit that beareth wit- 
ness, because the Spirit is truth ;' or, in other words, The 
Spirit was not Christ, as the Gnostics say, but it came to 
bear witness of Christ, to testify that Jesus, on whom the 
Spirit descended, was the Son of God ; and this witness 
was given by God himself, when he said, 4 This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.' If any of the 
Gnostic writings had come down to us, we should perhaps 
find that it was a common expression in them to say that 
Christ came by water, or in the water. It at least seems 
plain that some persons must have said so, or St John 
would not have thought it necessary to assert that he did 
not come by water only. But ecclesiastical history ac- 
quaints us with no persons who would have said that 
Christ came by water only, except the Gnostics ; and they, 
whether Cerinthians or Docetse, would certainly have said 
so, since this was their fundamental doctrine concerning 
the descent of Christ. I would observe also, that though 
our translators in each place wrote 4 by water,' the expres- 
sions are not the same in the Greek ; and the literal trans- 
lation would be, 4 This is he that came by water and blood, 
Jesus Christ, not in the water only, but in the water and 
the blood,' ovx, ev to vhuri [aovov, otKh' zv tcj vhoiTi x,ai tco 
MiftoiTi, which last clause might perhaps be rendered, 4 but 
in the water and by blood ;' and the meaning of the whole 
passage would be, that Christ did not come when the 
Spirit descended upon J esus in the water, but Christ was 
with Jesus — more accurately, Christ was Jesus — both when 
he was in the water, and before, when he was born into 
the world. 1 

It may be said, perhaps, that the phrase coming by blood 
is a very extraordinary one, to express being born into the 

1 In the first clause of verse 6, it is 8/ vhctTog, in the second su tco 
vOe&Ti, and John the Baptist speaks of himself as baptizing vhoLTi, 
John i. 33. In John iii. 5, we have yiWYiQri i% vhocTog. 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



221 



world; to which I would answer, that the fairest and 
safest way to interpret an author is by his own expres- 
sions ; and when St John, in his Gospel, wished to speak 
of the spiritual birth of a regenerated Christian, in oppo- 
sition to his first or natural birth, he writes, 4 Which were 
born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the 
will of man, but of God,' (i. 13.) It is plain, that to be 
born of blood is used in this place by St John for a natural 
or ordinary birth ; and so I conceive, that when he spoke 
in his epistle of Jesus Christ coming by blood, he meant 
to assert, contrary to the Gnostics, that Christ, as well as 
Jesus, was born of Mary ; or, as it is said, in the epistle 
to the Hebrews, he was partaker of flesh and blood, (ii. 14.) 
I have, perhaps, spent too much time upon what may 
seem to some a matter of verbal criticism ; but I could 
not pass over what appears to me so plain an allusion to 
the Cerinthian heresy without discussing it at some length. 
I am aware that this is not the usual interpretation, and I 
offer it with the greatest diffidence ; l but when the whole 
epistle is so pointedly directed against the Docetae, and 
when this view of the passage enables us to explain it 
literally, without any allegorical or mystical meaning, I 
can hardly help concluding that the interpretation is right, 
and that the false doctrines of the Gnostics concerning 
Christ were those which St John intended to confute." 2 

After all this, it will surely not be pretended that the 
theology which teaches the various anointings of the Lord's 
Christ, and the various generations, and the regeneration 
of the Son of God, is a piece of mere harmless absurdity. 
They who can pour the most ineffable contempt upon the 
attainments of all living divines, and profess to unfold for 
our instruction all that is profound in Christian theology, 

1 Michaelis understood this passage to be directed against the Cerinthian 
notion . of Christ descending upon Jesus at his baptism ; but he explains 
coming by blood to relate to the sufferings and death of Christ. Vol. iii. Part 
i. c. 7, § 3, p. 283. 

2 Bampton Lecture for 1829, page 187. Preached by Dr Burton, Regius 
Professor of Divinity, and Canon of Christ Church. 



222 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



while giving at every step the most glaring proofs of their 
total destitution of the most ordinary information, and 
pushing Gnosticism to an extent more wildly extravagant, 
and more directly fatal, than it ever received either from 
Simon Magus, its first propagator, or from Yalentinus, its 
last improver, may perhaps be considered only as objects 
of pity. They might well enough be left to proclaim 
themselves by far the greatest divines that the world pos- 
sesses without notice ; but when they proceed to overturn 
every doctrine of Christianity, their crude speculations re- 
quire to be met with the most uncompromising hostility ; 
for it is no trifle that is at stake. They who talk of the 
various anointings of Christ manifest an ignorance which 
fully acquits them of any evil intention. They know not 
that what they give us as the most profound theology, is 
in reality the most extravagant Gnosticism ; as is well 
known to every tyro in Ecclesiastical History. But the 
goodness of their intentions is very far from diminishing 
the mischief of the efforts by which they mislead others, as 
ignorant as themselves, into the most antichristian errors, — 
errors, whose revival in the nineteenth century certainly 
no man could have dreaded. "The Spirit beareth wit- 
ness, because the Spirit is truth." He bore witness at our 
Lord's baptism ; he bore witness during the whole period 
of his public ministry ; he bore witness at his outpouring 
upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost ; he bore wit- 
ness by the signs, and wonders, and mighty works by which 
he enabled them to confirm their doctrines ; he beareth 
witness still, taking of the things that are Christ's, and 
showing them to us. But if all of these manifestations of 
Christ, or if any of them, be considered as the anointing 
of Christ ; and, still more, if we are to suppose him to 
have been anointed at various times, receiving even new 
accessions to his Christhood, then we must admit that both 
the ancient Gnostic and the modern Socinian attribute to 
him a character somewhat too high. We must consider 
him not merely with the former as a different person from 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



223 



Jesus, and in some sense the Son of God ; but with the 
latter, as acting, it may be, under the impulse of a divine 
influence, but destitute of any divine personality, as fal- 
lible and peccable, nay, as actually fallen and sinful. If 
either of these doctrines be true, then the Gospel certainly 
cannot be called " a cunningly-devised fable ;" for it must 
be described as the most blundering imposture that ever 
bewildered the common sense of mankind. Of such a 
doctrine, how well mav we say, in the strong language 
employed on a different occasion by Saurin, if it be true, 
4 Then were the apostles idiots ; the early opponents of 
the Gospel were idiots ; and the primitive Christians 
were idiots.' And of such writers how justly may it 
be said, that they are kept from enunciating the ancient 
heresies by the dogmatism of ignorance ; while in prin- 
ciple, all the ancient heresies — and that pushed to an ex- 
tent beyond what ancient heretics dreamed of— are in- 
volved in what they write. 



CHAPTER VI, 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 

If any thing be capable of proof from Scripture, I think it 
must be admitted that the view now given of the person 
and work of Christ affords the most abundant, decisive, 
and overwhelming proof that his humanity was the very 
reverse of fallen sinful humanity. A conclusion which 
rests upon general principles, is always more satisfactory 
than one that is founded on particular texts. In the pre- 
sent age, when the most loose, and vague, and unsatisfac- 
tory views of Inspiration are commonly avowed, the autho- 
rity of any particular text is very unceremoniously set 
aside. But in the general view which has been taken of 
the work which Christ came to do in the flesh, we have 
seen, at every step in our progress, that to introduce the 
tenet that his flesh was fallen and sinful, is totally to de- 
stroy the nature of that work, and to render it incapable of 
teaching any one of the lessons that we have been accus- 
tomed to draw from it. Angels and men have learned the 
character of God, from the manifestation of it in the per- 
son and work of Christ. But if he was a fallen sinful man, 
then the whole Christian world has hitherto been labour- 
ing under the strangest misconception as to the nature of 
that work, — have never had the most distant conception 
of what Christianity is, but, instead of it, have been be- 
lieving something not only totally different from, but es- 
sentially opposed to it. For he who believes that the hu- 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 225 

manity of Christ was fallen and sinful, and he who holds a 
view of Christianity, every principle of which that tenet 
overturns, are so opposed, that one of them must be fun- 
damentally and fatally wrong. And as the Church never 
did believe, as I shall soon have occasion to show, that the 
humanity of Christ was fallen and sinful, it follows that if 
that tenet be right, then the Church has from the begin 
ning been training her members to the belief of something 
which not only is not Christianity, but which stands in fun- 
damental and fatal opposition to Christianity. I would 
ask the reader who has accompanied me through the pre- 
ceding pages, whether he has found the view that I have 
given of the work which Christ came to do in the flesh 
something altogether new and strange, something totally un- 
like aught that he ever heard before, and utterly subversive 
of all his previous views of the gospel ? Particular mistakes 
and incidental errors there may be ; but is the whole frame 
work of that branch of theology which I have been treat- 
ing in irreconcileable opposition to all that he has hitherto 
been taught upon the subject, and to all that he has under- 
stood to be the doctrine of the Church ? I apprehend he 
will say that the very reverse of all this is the truth, and 
that in the preceding pages he has met with nothing but 
the common current theology to which he has always been 
accustomed, — has met with nothing either to startle him 
by its novelty, or to overthrow the doctrines which he has 
always been taught to consider as sound and orthodox. But 
either I must have written, or he must have read, very care- 
lessly, if he has not seen at every step how completely the 
doctrines which I have advocated are subverted by the in- 
troduction of the tenet, that the flesh of Christ was fallen 
sinful flesh. He must have seen how effectually that tenet 
sweeps away every principle upon which I have reasoned, 
and every conclusion to which I have come. Christ came 
that he might reveal to us the Father, — might manifest to 
us, and to the whole rational creation, the infinite perfec- 
tions of the incomprehensible Jehovah ; but if he was a 

k2 



226 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



fallen sinful man, that manifestation has not yet been 
made, the vindication of his perfections from the suspicion 
cast upon them by the introduction of sin has not yet been 
accomplished, and to our altars the inscription is still appro- 
priate — " To the unknown God." He came that he might 
lay down his life for his sheep, and wash us from our sins 
in his own blood ; but if he was a fallen sinful man, he 
had no life that he had any power to lay down, nor if he 
had, would such a " common thing" as the blood of a fallen 
man have availed as an atonement for our sins. And when 
the only source whence our knowledge of God is drawn has 
been dried up, and the only ground upon which our hope 
of being reconciled to him is swept away, I know not what 
of Christianity remains that is worth defending, or that is 
capable of defence. 

A few of the many texts bearing upon the Incarnation, 
and which have not already been particularly discussed, 
may with propriety be noticed in this place. The expec- 
tations that were entertained from the beginning, concern- 
ing the promised Deliverer, it would be long to trace, and 
not here very necessary. Eve expected not a fallen man, 
when, on the birth of her first-born son, hoping that the 
promised Deliverer was sent, she called his name Cain, and 
said, " I have gotten a man from the Lord." Moses seems 
to have had the same suffering conqueror in his eye when, 
feeling that though u he was learned in all the wisdom of 
Egypt, and mighty both in word and in deed," he was yet 
all unfit for a work which seemed too hard to be accom- 
plished by fallen man, he said, " O my Lord, send, I pray 
thee, by the hand of him whom thou wilt send." 1 It may I 
think be supposed, without any straining of the text, that by 
" him whom thou wilt send," Moses referred to the Shiloh 
whose coming Jacob had foretold, and to whom the ga- 
thering of the people was to be. A very slight investiga- 
tion would furnish us with many indications, that the an- 



1 Exodus ir. 13. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



cient believers in the victory of the " woman's seed," had 
no idea that he who was to deliver them from the conta- 
gion of the fall was himself to be a fallen sinful man. 

The first text to which I shall refer is Psalm xlv. 7, 
a Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wickedness ; there- 
fore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad- 
ness above thy fellows." That this should be read, " O 
God, thy God hath anointed thee," I entertain no doubt ; 1 
and thus we have the humanity of Christ, that which was 
anointed distinctly called God. But the purpose for which 
I principally quote the text is to introduce the opinion of 
Augustine with regard to the time when the anointing took 
place. " Neither truly was Christ anointed with the Holy 
Spirit then when it descended upon him as a dove at his 
baptism ; for then he condescended to bear the figure of his 
body, that is, his Church, in which they that are baptized 
receive the Holy Spirit. But he must be understood to 
have been anointed with that mystic and invisible miction 
then when the Word of God was made flesh, that is, when 
the human nature, without any preceding merit of good 
work, was united to God the Word in the Yirgin's womb, 
so as to become one person with him. For this reason we 
confess him to be born of the Holy Spirit, and the Virgin 
Mary. For it is most absurd to suppose that when he was 
thirty years old, — for at that age he was baptized by John, 
— he received the Holy Spirit ; but that he came to bap- 
tism as altogether without sin, so not without the Holy 
Spirit." 2 Augustine understood theology too well to admit 

1 See Schleusner's Lexicon of the Old Testament Greek, under the word 

2 Nec sane time unctus est Christus Spiritu Sancto, qnando super eum bap- 
tizatum velut columba deseendit : tunc enim corpus suum, id est, Ecclesiam 
suam praefigurare dignatus est, in qua prsecipue baptizati accipiunt Spiritum 
Sanctum : sed ista mystica et invisibili unctione tunc intelligendus est unctus, 
quando Verbum Dei caro factum est, id est, quando humana natura sine ullis 
praecedentibus bonorum operum meritis Deo Verbo est in utero Virginis co- 
pulata, ita ut cum illo una fieret persona. Ob hoc eum conritemur natum de 
Spiritu Sancto et Virgine Maria. Absurdissimum est enim, ut credamus eum 
cum jam triginta esset annorum, (ejus enim setatis a Joanne baptizatus est,) 



228 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



the fatal supposition that Christ was, at his baptism, 
anointed as a Prophet, or as any thing else. The fathers 
assign various reasons for the baptism of our Lord. Some 
teach us that he was baptized that he might set us an ex- 
ample, for if his sinless flesh was baptized, how much more 
ought we to be so ; — some that he was baptized in order to 
give authority to the baptism of John, — some that his pure 
body might sanctify the waters of Jordan, — and communi- 
cate to them the power of washing sin away. But not one 
of them ever hints that he was baptized because, being 
made fallen sinful flesh, he needed that regeneration of 
which baptism is the outward sign, as well as we ; and 
they were too much harassed by the inroads of the Gnos- 
tics, for a moment to admit that at his baptism he received 
his unction. 

I next refer to the celebrated declaration, " Behold, a 
virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his 
name Immanuel." 1 As the principle of this text has been 
already sufficiently discussed, I do not quote it with the 
intention of making any comment upon it ; but simply for 
the purpose of repeating a remark already made, that if 
our Lord took fallen sinful flesh, no imaginable reason can 
be assigned for the extraordinary circumstances that at- 
tended his birth. If his flesh differed not from ours in any 
thing,— if he, like us, was fallen and sinful, then why was 
his flesh generated in a manner so extremely different ? 
And upon what ground can we suppose that God wrought 
a miracle, which does indeed surpass all miracles, for the 
purpose of producing that which would, with unerring cer- 
tainty, have been produced without it ? And upon what 
principle can we account for God interposing, not merely 
to produce that which would have been produced by the 
ordinary course of nature, but to produce a fallen sinful 
thing, which he denominates a " holy thing," and which, 

accipisse Spiritum Sanctum : sed venisse ilium ad baptisma, sicut sine ullo 
orrmino peccato, ita non sine Spiritu Sancto. — Be Trinitate, Lib. xv. cap. 46. 
1 Isaiah vii. 14. Compare Mattb. i. 23. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



229 



being generated by his immediate act, is called " the Son 
of God?" 

The next text to which I refer is — " The Lord hath 
created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass 
a man." 1 A dangerous notion has sometimes been drawn 
from this verse, or at least this verse has been quoted in 
support of it. The notion to which I refer is, that the flesh 
of Christ was a new thing created in the Virgin, but not 
created of her. The necessity of believing that he received 
from her all that every other man receives from a mother, I 
have already pointed out, and need not here repeat. But it is 
surely as foolish to say, that because the phrase, " to create 
a new thing," is used 2 where there is no actual creation, 
therefore, we cannot infer from this text that Christ was a 
new creature. If we mean to be extremely precise in our 
language, we would not perhaps say that Christ was a new 
creation, because his humanity was produced by generation ; 
but we can have no hesitation whatever in declaring him to 
be a new creature. Yet the fathers had no scruples about the 
word creation, as applied to Christ, being familiar with the 
text, " The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, for 
his works," 3 a text which, being greatly relied upon by the 
Arians, they were very much in the habit of discussing, in 
order to show how an orthodox meaning could be drawn 
from it. And, in truth, any scrupulosity upon the subject 
is more than is either required or authorized by either rea- 
son or Scripture ; for the Scriptures, speaking of the be- 
liever, sometimes describe him as a " new creature," and 
sometimes as regenerated ; and our Lord himself is ex- 
pressly called " the beginning of the creation of God." 

In connection with this text, we may properly advert to 
two others ; the first is — " Put ye on the Lord Jesus 

1 Jer. xxxi. 22. Literally— The Lord createth a new thing in the earth, a 
woman shall encompass a strong one. 2 Numbers xvi. 30. 

3 Kvgiog eKTius {az o>(>%y\v ohav ccvrou ag e^yoc ctvrov. This is 
the Septuagint translation of Proverbs viii. 22 ; and as very few of the fa- 
thers knew Hebrew, they were not aware of its being a very gross mistrans- 
lation. 



230 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



Christ." 1 The following exhortation may, I think, be con- 
sidered as perfectly equivalent to this, at least I see not the 
difference between them — " And that ye put on the new 
man, which after God is created in righteousness and true 
holiness." 2 On the authority of such texts as these, it 
appears to me that the fathers were perfectly justified in 
calling our Lord " the new man," even if it should be 
urged that the " old man," whom we are required to u put 
off," and the " new man," whom we are required to " put 
on," 3 refer not at all to Adam and Christ, but are solely 
descriptive of our own character before and after regenera- 
tion. For " if any man be in Christ he is a new creature." 
Now, if by putting off the old man, and putting on the new 
man, we become new creatures, then it is indisputable that 
he who was formed in the womb that " holy thing," by 
conformity to which we become new creatures, was him- 
self a new creature. As far as the covenants of God are 
concerned, there are only two men in existence, Adam and 
Christ, the first Adam and the last Adam, — the first man 
and the second man. Every individual is in either the one 
or the other of these men. If we be in the first Adam, we 
derive from him, as a fallen sinful being, the inheritance of 
guilt and death. We must, therefore, of necessity be se- 
parated from him, and ingrafted in the last Adam, that in 
him we may inherit righteousness and life eternal. But if 
he, too, was fallen and sinful, then our ingrafting into him 
can never make us new creatures, nor can any imaginable 
advantage be derived from our being transferred from one 
fallen stock to another. We may, therefore, with perfect 
safety and propriety, call Christ a new creature, in whom 
we become new creatures. The only error against which 
we have to guard, in the use of such language, is the sup- 
position that he was not formed truly and really " of the 
substance of his mother," an error of the most fatal nature. 
But while we guard against this error, let us not forget that 



1 Rom. xiii. 14. 



* Ephes. iv. 24. 



* CoL iii. 9. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



231 



u we are members of his body, of bis flesh, and of his 
bones to little advantage doubtless, if they be the flesh 
and bones of a fallen sinful man like ourselves. 

We may now pass on to 'the text, " The Word was 
made flesh." 1 I have already shown that it was essen- 
tially necessary for our Saviour to become man, as he could 
not otherwise have discharged the duties of any of his 
offices as Prophet, Priest, and King. Without being truly 
God and truly man, he would have been totally unfit for 
the duties of any one of these offices. But upon the ne- 
cessity of his Incarnation I need not again enter. The 
verse, however, suggests some other remarks which must 
not be passed over. It expresses the perfect identity of 
the Word and the flesh. It is not said that he assumed 
the flesh, or dwelt in the flesh, but that he was made flesh ; 
Non in homine, sed homo erat, He was not in the man, but 
was the man. The union between the divinity and human- 
ity took place at the moment of his conception in the Vir- 
gin's womb. It would utterly subvert all our views of 
Christ to suppose that his manhood was first formed, and 
the divinity then united to it ; 2 for this would just be to 
admit the possibility of a separation between the persons ; 
and it would be to admit that Jesus was at one time not the 
Christ : and in this case whether he was anointed at his bap- 
tism as the Gnostics said, or was partially anointed then as 
a Prophet, and at his resurrection as a Priest ; or whether 
he was ever anointed at all, is a matter into which it is 
of no consequence to us to inquire. Hence the Evangelist, 
who knew well the errors that were afloat upon the sub- 
ject, does not even say that he assumed manhood, but that 
he was made flesh, his flesh from the moment of concep- 
tion being as really and truly himself as his divinity was 
himself. " For the one Christ was both always the Son of 
God by nature, and the Son of Man, who was assumed, by 
grace, in time : Nor was he so assumed that being first 



1 John i. 14. 



2 See note H. Appendix. 



232 SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 

created, he might be afterwards assumed, but so that he 
might be created in the act of assumption." 1 The word 
" assume" does by no means express all the reality and 
extent of that union which subsists between the two natures 
in Christ, and which is expressed by the Evangelist when 
he said, " The Word was made flesh." It has, indeed, got 
a seat in our theology, from which any attempt to dis- 
lodge it would be useless : but I cannot help suspecting 
that both in ancient and modern times, it has had its share 
in misleading those who divide the one indivisible Christ. 
For that which was assumed might possibly exist, nay, we 
naturally suppose must exist, previous to its assumption. 
And with regard to the human nature which the Word 
assumed, this was no doubt the case. But when the idea 
is applied to that flesh which was the very flesh of the 
Word of God, it may lead to the supposition that that flesh 
existed as a person before it became the flesh of the Word ; 
in other words, that Jesus existed before he was the Christ. 
Now, the rule observed by the sacred writers is, that all 
the names, titles, attributes, which are applied to the one 
person of Christ, are equally applicable to either of his 
natures ; and that every thing that may be said of either 
of the natures, may also be said of the whole indivisible 
Christ. Thus, the Son of Man is in heaven, while talking 
with Nicodemus on earth ; and God purchased the Church 
with his own blood, and the Lord of glory was crucified. 
To this rule I know not that any exception is to be found 
in Scripture. 

As to the manner in which he became man, after the 
heresies by which the Primitive Church was infested, had 
caused the assembling of repeated councils to condemn 

1 Ipse namque unus Christus et Dei Filius semper natura, et hominis Alius 
qui extempore assumptus est gratia : nec sic assumptus est ut prius creatus 
post assumeratur, sed ut ipsa assumptione crearetur. — Augustine contra Ser- 
monem Arrianorum, cap. 8. This expression has been given with more point 
by a more modern writer — Earn suinendo creavit, et creando sumpsit.— Zan- 
chius de Jncarnatione, p. 57. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



233 



them, and had rendered necessary a more guarded mode 
of expression than had been called for at an earlier period, 
it was expressed by four Greek words, and the Word was 
said to have become man, oihv\&ag, Isheag, a&i»tf>flag, aa- 
wyxvias, that is, truly, perfectly, inclivisibly, unconfusedly. 
The Docetae taught that he was not really man, but that 
his humanity was a mere phantom. It was, therefore, 
made a necessary part of the orthodox creed, to confess 
that he was truly man, and not merely a phantom. The 
ApoUinarians taught that he took only the body, but not 
the reasonable soul of man. It was, therefore, made a 
necessary part of the orthodox creed, to confess that he 
became perfectly man, and not man merely as to his body, 
Nestorius taught, that, in becoming man, there was still 
such a difference between what was divine and what was 
human in him, as to assign to him not only two natures, 
but two persons. It was, therefore, made a necessary 
part of the orthodox creed to confess that in him there 
was no division, but that in his two natures he was only 
one person. Eutyches taught that in becoming man, the 
divine and human natures were so mingled together, as to 
become but one nature distinct from either, — something 
lower than the divine, and higher than the human. It was, 
therefore, made a necessary part of the orthodox creed to 
confess that in him the natures were never mingled nor 
confounded together, and that in his one person there was 
still two distinct natures. Thus, as the soul and the body, 
though very different in their nature, make but one man, 
without division or confusion, and are both necessary to 
the complete existence of the man, so the two natures in 
our Lord make but one Christ, who, as he was God over 
all, even so was he man, truly, perfectly, without division 
of the persons, and without confusion of the natures. 

Of the two former of these errors I am not aware that we 
are at present in any particular danger, though the whole 
Church has been loudly proclaimed to be deeply and exten- 
sively affected with one or both of them. The third, that in 



234 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



Christ there were two persons as well as two natures, is at 
present preached with a zeal that would do honour to a bet- 
ter cause. They who promulgate it do, no doubt, deny, as 
strongly as ever Nestorius did, that they are guilty of this 
heresy ; while they are in reality pushing it to an extent to 
which ISTestorius had little suspicion that it could be ever car- 
ried. To maintain that when the Word was made flesh, he 
was made fallen sinful flesh, is to leave that heresiarch far 
behind in the attempt to subvert the catholic faith. A 
more convenient opportunity, however, of showing this will 
occur afterwards. At present I shall only observe, that 
though it may very well be believed that God can ope- 
rate upon a fallen sinful man by his divine influence, nay, 
that he could dwell in such a man, without contracting 
any impurity ; yet nothing strikes me as being more re- 
pugnant to every sentiment of reverence and of piety, than 
to say that God was actually made a fallen sinful man, — 
that of God it may be said that he was fallen and sinful. 
And that this is maintained, or, at least, has very lately 
been maintained, aye, and maintained as the basis of all 
sound theology, may be denied till earth ring again with 
the negation ; but, as long as we have eyes to read what 
is written, admits of neither doubt nor dispute. That 
they who have promulgated this fearful impiety, did so in 
utter ignorance of the nature of what they were propagat- 
ing, and in reality meant no harm, may be readily grant- 
ed ; and I should trust it may be reasonably hoped, that 
they who deny that they ever taught it, will, at least, now 
that they are better instructed, teach it no more. 

The two natures united in Christ, at the moment when 
his humanity was first formed, were not separated at his 
death. That they were so we are now distinctly taught. 
The ruinous consequences of this I have already pointed 
out, and shown distinctly how that separation effectually 
destroys the doctrine of atonement and of the resurrec- 
tion. " For this purpose was the Son of God manifested, 
that he might destroy the works of the devil." It was on 



SCRIFTURE TESTIMONIES. 



235 



the cross that he met the severest assaults of that enemy 
of mankind ; and it was on the cross that he obtained the 
most signal victory, — the last decisive triumph over him, 
u destroying death, and him that had the power of death, 
that is, the devil." But if the divine nature was separated 
from him then, then it was not Christ who died, who was 
buried, and who rose again ; and, consequently, every 
hope that we repose on him is vain. And as neither the 
soul nor the body of Christ, while separated from each 
other, were separated from his divinity, so the resurrec- 
tion did not separate them from it. United to divinity 
when separated from each other, they were not separated 
from it when united to each other. Nor did his ascension 
produce that separation. When he ascended up on high, 
he no more ceased to be truly man, than he ceased to be 
truly God when he descended. "Nov have we any intima- 
tion that, at any subsequent period, his human nature was 
separated from his divine nature. On the contrary, we 
have the most decisive evidence that no such separation 
ever has taken, or ever will take place, — that the humanity 
of Christ now is just as truly human nature as ours is. A 
doctrine so plain and so certain I need not stop to support 
by any formal proof to any reader of the Bible ; nor would 
it indeed have been necessary even to state it at all, were it 
not that it has not only been denied, but held up to scorn, 
by some of the more hopelessly ignorant propagators of 
the doctrine, that our Lord's humanity was fallen and 
sinful. Of that doctrine, the denial that our Lord's hu- 
manity now exists is the natural result. Of the principal 
arguments that have been used in support of that doctrine 
it is the necessary and unavoidable result. We need not 
a more decisive proof that these arguments are founded 
upon false principles, than the fact that they necessarily 
involve the ruinous supposition that our great Advocate is 
no longer man. If it be true that he could not be man 
without being fallen and sinful, then it is equally true that 
either he is fallen and sinful still, or he is man no more. 



236 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



It is necessary to observe here, that in the present age 
it would be proper to add a fifth to the four Greek words 
mentioned above ; or rather, to give an additional appli- 
cation to the second of them, Ts^scog. That word was 
used, as I have said, to express the perfection of his man- 
hood, in opposition to those who maintained that he took 
only a human body, but not a reasonable soul. It may 
now be also applied to express the perfection of his God- 
head, in opposition to those who maintain that when he 
was made man he emptied himself of his divinity, and 
that he brought with him a Godhead person but no God- 
head properties. Who was made man? The Word. 
And what are the Godhead properties of the Word ? In- 
finity, eternity, and immutability in wisdom, power, holi- 
ness, justice, goodness, and truth. And what is the Word 
when divested of these properties ? He is clearly God no 
longer ; and it is equally clear that he never could be God 
at all ; and it is still as clear that if he became man when 
divested of these properties, then God was never incarnate, 
for before his incarnation he ceased to be God. But still 
he brought a Godhead person, and this was something 
divine. Now, admitting for a moment the fearful supposi- 
tion that God could divest himself of his Godhead pro- 
perties, and yet retain his Godhead personality, and thus 
become incarnate, it is clear that he was only partially 
God. Divested of all his Godhead properties, he could 
not be " perfect God." Now, besides that this notion, as 
I have elsewhere shown, goes directly and immediately to 
the establishment of atheism, I would ask how could 
Christ manifest to us the properties of the Godhead, the 
great purpose of his coming, if before he came he divested 
himself of all those properties for the very purpose of 
manifesting which he was made man? But the fact is, 
that divested of these properties, supposing the thing pos- 
sible, he is divested at the same time of all personality. 
In that case the hoyog -a^o^Kog he might be ; the hoyog 
tvliuforog he could not possibly be. It is, therefore, of the 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



237 



utmost importance to believe that he was " perfect God 
and perfect man ;" and happily the evidence of this truth 
is as abundant as the reception of it is important. We 
have not a Saviour in whom dwelt a limited, shackled, and 
divided divinity, but a Saviour in whom dwelt all the ful- 
ness of the Godhead bodily. 

As we believe that when the " Word was made flesh," 
the two natures were so united in him that they never 
have been, and never can be, separated, we hold it no less 
essential to believe, that these two natures remained al- 
ways perfectly distinct in the one person of Christ. The 
divinity was not, and could not be, converted into flesh, 
for it is not capable of change. As little could the flesh 
be changed into the divinity, for that also would have 
been to produce a change in the divinity, which is impos- 
sible ; and it would have been to create a portion of the 
divinity, which is equally impossible. The two natures, 
therefore, remain inseparably united, and, at the same 
time, unmingled and perfectly distinct. Nothing can be 
more fatal than to suppose that the will of the Godhead 
and the will of the manhood were both merged in the one 
will of the Christ ; thus, by some unintelligible and un- 
imaginable mingling of the two, producing something that, 
instead of being both God and man, is neither the one 
nor the other. Of this error, I do not apprehend that, in 
the present age, we are in any great danger, though the 
guilt of holding it has been loudly charged upon the 
Church. I have met with it no where, however, except- 
ing in the writings of some of those who make the charge, 
where it may be seen occasionally broadly stated as a very 
essential portion of Christian doctrine. A sense of de- 
cency might, I think, secure the Church from any such 
charge from such a quarter. 

We believe, then, and that upon abundant Scripture 
evidence, that when the " Word was made flesh," he be- 
came man, uTariQag, TZhiag, eib tourer a g, aawy%yrag. And we 
believe no less firmly that the man was truly and perfectly 



238 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



God, existing " in two distinct natures, and one person for 
ever." 

Our Saviour is in Scripture called God's " holy child 
Jesus." This refers specifically to his humanity ; for be- 
fore his incarnation he was the Son of God, but not his 
child. But when he became the child of God by incarna- 
tion, he was a holy child, and consequently untainted by 
that lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, which attaches 
the character of unholiness to all the fallen race of Adam. 
Moreover, he is called " the Holy One of God." This too 
is an appellation which could not be applied to him before 
his incarnation, but which he receives in consequence of 
his manhood ; for it would be absurd to say that God is 
the Holy One of himself. Hence neither the Father nor 
the Holy Ghost is ever called the " Holy One of God," 
for neither of them was ever incarnate. But could that 
humanity, in consequence of which our Lord receives this 
title, be fallen sinful humanity? I can conceive nothing 
more irrational than the supposition that he acquired the 
peculiar and distinguishing title of " the Holy One df 
God," just by taking into personal and perpetual union 
with himself that which was fallen and sinful. 

A text of much importance, in the present controversy, 
is the following : — u For what the law could not do, in 
that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own 
Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned 
sin in the flesh." 1 Here Christ is declared to have been 
sent u in the likeness of sinful flesh." Now, had his flesh 
been really sinful flesh, how could it possibly be also like 
sinful flesh ? Two things completely exclude likeness, either 
total opposition or entire identity. Had the flesh of Christ 
been in all respects different from sinful flesh, then it could 
not with truth have been said to be in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh. And it is equally plain, that had it been in all 
respects the same as sinful flesh, that is, had it been sinful 



1 Rom. viiL 3. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



239 



flesh, it could with as little truth have been said to be in 
the likeness of sinful flesh. I cannot conceive a plainer 
or a more decisive text, a clearer or more unequivocal tes- 
timony to the fact that the flesh of Christ was not sinful 
flesh, but in the likeness of sinful flesh. And I would put 
it to my reader, whether he be capable of believing that 
any man, reading this text, without a previous hypothesis 
in his head, ever did draw, or ever could by any possi- 
bility draw from it, the conclusion that the flesh of Christ 
was sinful flesh, — a conclusion in such direct opposition to 
its plain simple meaning ? 

This text stands as a barrier against many heresies, and 
has consequently been more violently distorted, in order 
to wring from it a meaning that it will not, without much 
torture, express than perhaps any other. It was first laid 
hold of by the Gnostics, who attempted to prove from it 
that Christ had not real flesh, but only the likeness of 
flesh. Their Catholic opponents, to a man, maintained 
that the likeness was intended to qualify not the word 
flesh, which was real, but the word sinful, because his flesh 
was not sinful. In this it must be admitted that they had 
a much harder task than we who have to defend the lite- 
ral meaning of the text from a much more palpable, and 
much less plausible, perversion than that of the Gnostics. 
How they performed their work I shall show by an ex- 
ample, which will at the same time have the effect of con- 
firming the literal interpretation which I have given above, 
— if, indeed, I may call that an interpretation at all, which 
consists in merely understanding words to mean, what 
they express as plainly, as any interpretation can do for 
them. " For this purpose, therefore, the Son was sent in 
the likeness of flesh of sin that he might redeem the flesh 
of sin in a similar, that is, in a fleshly substance, which 
might be like to sinful flesh, while itself was not sinful. 
For this will show the power of God if he accomplish our 
salvation in a similar substance. For if would be no great 
matter were the Spirit of God to remedy flesh ; but if 



240 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



flesh like to sinful flesh, while it is flesh, but not sinful 
should do so : thus the likeness will belong to the words of 
sm, 1 and not infer a denial of the substance. For he would 
not have added, of sin, if he had intended the likeness of 
the substance to be understood so as to deny its reality. 
In that case, he would only have said, the likeness of flesh, 
and not of flesh of sin. When, therefore, he hath thus 
expressed it, — 4 in the likeness of flesh of sin, 1 he hath 
both established the substance, that is, the flesh, and hath 
referred the likeness to the vice of the substance, that is, 
to sin.'" 2 To so clear an exposition of the text, I know 
not what the Gnostic can possibly object. And if the 
Gnostic perversion of the text will not stand in opposition 
to the simple Catholic view of it, then no other can hope 
to be received ; for no other that I have met with is at all 
to be compared with it in point of plausibility. 

The text next fell into the hands of the Pelagians, who 
felt it absolutely necessary to get its plain meaning set 
aside. They were capable of going great lengths, but 
still they had some scruples which the riper learning of 
modern times has very completely dissipated, and did not 
pretend that this text actually teaches their doctrine in 
itself, and would no doubt have very gladly omitted all 
notice of it. This, however, could not be done ; for when 

1 The Greek of Rom. viii. 3, is eu ofioicdf^otri c&QKog &{6oi()ricig, 
literally, in the likeness of flesh of sin. In our translation it is, with perfect 
propriety, rendered sinful flesh. The two expressions are perfectly equivalent, 
and I use the one or the other just as the convenience of the sentence in 
which it occurs may require. 

2 Ob hoc igitur Missum Filium in similitudinem carnis peccati ut carnem 
simili substantia redimeret, id est, carnea, quae peccatrici carni similis esset, 
quum peccatrix ipsa non esset. Nam et haec erit Dei virtus, in substantia 
pari perficere salutem, Non enim magnum, si Spiritus Dei carnem reme- 
diaret ; sed si caro consimihs peccatrici, dum caro est, sed non peccati. Ita 
similitudo ad titulum peccati pertinebit, non ad substantias mendacium. 
Nam nec addidisset, peccati, si substantias similitudinem vellet intelligi, ut 
negaret veritatem. Tantum enim carnis posuisset, non et peccati. Quum 
vero tunc sic struxerit, carnis peccati, et substantiam confirmavit, id est, car- 
nem; et similitudinem ad vitium substantias retulit, id est, ad peccatum. 
— TertuUian adversm Marciomm, Lib. v. cap. 14. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



241 



it is declared that Christ was sent in the likeness of sinful 
flesh, the conclusion seems inevitable, that, with the single 
exception of his flesh, all human flesh is sinful ; and thus 
the corruption of the human heart is established and Pela- 
gianism ruined. Urged by necessity, therefore, they la- 
boured not only to neutralize the force of the text, but to 
draw from it an authority in favour of their system. The 
way in which they went to work was this : they endea- 
voured to show that there is no difference whatever be- 
tween our flesh and that of Christ, — that his flesh was 
just such as ours ; and then, as it was universally admit- 
ted by all, whether Catholics or heretics, 1 that the flesh of 
Christ was not, and could not possibly be, sinful, conse- 
quently, our flesh, which is the same as his, is not sinful ; 
and the doctrine of original sin, and our consequent de- 
pendence upon the grace of God for all good, cannot be 
true. This was, no doubt, also a sufficiently ingenious 
perversion of the text, though far inferior in that respect 
to the comment of the Gnostics. Their reasonings were 
met by Augustine the first, and, as far as my experience 
goes, the ablest opponent of that pernicious system. I 
cannot think that I am over-stating the matter when I 
say, that he has quoted this text a hundred times, and 
uniformly understands it in its simple literal meaning. 
The conclusion which he draws from it is, that our flesh 
must be sinful, else it could not be said of the Word, that 
when he was made flesh he was sent in the likeness of 
sinful flesh, for this plain reason, that if there be no such 
thing as sinful flesh, then there can be no such thing as 
the likeness of sinful flesh, for that would be the likeness 
of nothing. He farther argues, therefore, that if it be 
true that there is no difference between our flesh and that 
of Christ, then the inference must of necessity be, that the 
flesh of Christ was sinful, since that ours is so is indisput- 
able. As I have given TertuUiarts refutation of the 

9 

1 One exception to this, occurring in the person of Parmenianus the Dona - 
tist, will t>e noticed afterwards. 

L 



242 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



Gnostic comment upon this much abused passage, I shall 
give one out of many of Augustine's refutations of the 
Pelagian comment : — " Why should you attempt, by labo- 
rious arguments, to bring yourself to the very precipice of 
impiety, saying, that 4 the flesh of Christ, because it was 
born of Mary, whose flesh, like that of all others, was 
propagated from Adam, differs nothing from sinful flesh ; 
and the apostle may have been understood to have spoken 
without distinction when he said that he was sent in the 
likeness of sinful flesh :' nay, rather insisting that 1 there 
is no sinful flesh, lest the flesh of Christ should be so ?' 
What, then, means ' the likeness of sinful flesh,' if there be 
no sinful flesh? You say that I do not understand the 
apostle's meaning. You, however, have not so expounded 
it, that by your instruction we might know how one thing 
can be like another thing which has no existence. If 
none but a madman would say this, and there be no doubt 
that the flesh of Christ is not sinful flesh, but like sinful 
flesh, what remains for us to understand but that, Ms flesh 
excepted, all other human flesh is sinful? And hence it 
appears, that that concupiscence by which Christ refused 
to be conceived, is the means of propagating evil in the 
human race ; because the body of Mary, though derived 
from concupiscence, did not transmit it to that body which 
she did not by it conceive. In short, whosoever denies 
that the body of Christ is therefore said to be in the like- 
ness of sinful flesh, because all other human flesh is sinful ; 
and so compares the flesh of Christ to the flesh of other 
men that are born, as to say that they are of equal purity, 
discovers himself to be a detestable heretic." 1 This com- 

1 Quid est quod laboras magnis argumentationibus pervenire ad impietatis 
abruptum, ut Christi caro, quia de Maria natus est, cujus Virginis caro, sicut 
ceterorum omnium et Adam fuerat propagata, nihil disteta came peccati, et sine 
ulla distinctione Apostolus dixisse credatur, eum fuisse missam in similitudine 
carnis peccati; immo potius instes, ut nulla sit caro peccati, nehoc sit et Christi ? 
Quid est ergo, similitudo carnis peccati, si nulla est caro peccati ? Sed hanc 
apostolicam sententiam me non intellexisse dixisti : nec earn tamen exposuisti, 
ut te doctore nossemus, quod aliqua res possit esse similis ei rei quae non est. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



248 



ment of Augustine will probably be considered as vindicat- 
ing the passage from the gloss of the Pelagians as satis- 
factorily as TertulliarCs comment vindicated it against that 
of the Gnostics. 

The text has now been taken up by those who maintain 
the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. They adopt substan- 
tially the Pelagian interpretation of it, though they draw 
from it a directly opposite conclusion. The Pelagian argu- 
ment was this — There is no difference between our flesh 
and that of Christ ; but the flesh of Christ could not possi- 
bly be sinful ; therefore our flesh is not sinful. The mo- 
dern argument is this — There is no difference between our 
flesh and that of Christ ; but our flesh is undeniably sinful 
flesh ; therefore the flesh of Christ was also sinful. They 
agree in maintaining that there is no difference between our 
flesh and that of Christ, but the modern interpreter, with 
a hardihood which it appears that Pelagianism could not 
inspire, asserts that this identity of our flesh and that of 
Christ is the direct literal declaration of the text. This is 
a flight beyond the reach of Julian, who only said that the 
apostle might be understood to have spoken without any 
distinction. And yet by all that we know of him, we 
should be far from thinking him to have been overburdened 
with scruples. Gennadius tells us, what indeed is acknow- 
ledged by all, that he was extensively acquainted with 
both Greek and Roman literature. But Marius Mercator 
places a sad blot on the picture, when he states, — a state- 
ment fully borne out by all that I have read of his writings, 
— that he was aloquacious, ostentatious sciolist. Augustine, 

Quod si dementis est dicere, et sine dubio caro Christ! non est caro peccati, 
sed similis carni peccati ; quid re3tat ut intelliganius, nisi, ea excepta, omnem 
reliquam humanam carnem esse peccati ? Et nine apparet illam concupiscen- 
tiam, per quam Christus concipi noluit, fecisse in genere humane- propaginem 
mali : quia Marias corpus, quam vis inde venerit, tamen earn non trajecit in 
corpus quod non inde concepit. Ceterum, corpus Christi inde dictum esse in 
simihtudine carnis peccati, quia omnis alia hominum caro peccati est, quis- 
quis negat ; et carnem Christi ita carni comparat nascentium hominum cete- 
rorum, ut asserat utramque esse puritatis sequalis, detestandus hereticus in- 
yenitur. — Contra Julianum, Lib. v. cap. 15. 



244 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



who had been his father's friend, and was not disposed to 
speak with unnecessary severity of him, calls him " a most 
confident youth," and describes him as being " in discussion 
most loquacious, in controversy most calumnious, in pro- 
fession most deceitful." But with all his skill in Greek 
literature, Julian had not sagacity to discover what would 
have been of so great advantage to him, that 6 pot a pot, lite- 
rally means identity. The discovery has now been made, 
the Pelagian interpretation of the text under discussion 
confirmed, and a much worse than Pelagian heresy founded 
upon it. As Augustine is one of the fathers quoted in sup- 
port of the assertion that all the fathers hold the doctrine s 
of the sinfulness of Christ's humanity, and support those 
interpretations of Scripture by which it is maintained, I 
cannot do better than again avail myself of the language 
of that venerable saint, and thus at once still farther esta- 
blish the literal meaning of the text, and rescue his memory 
from the imputation cast upon it. 

In reply to the reproach of Julian, who charges with 
Manichseism those who make a distinction between ourflesh 
and that of Christ, he says : — " They are not Manichseans 
who distinguish the flesh of Christ from the community of 
our nature ; but they who maintain that Christ had no flesh. 
Therefore, in joining to us the Manichseans, who are as 
deeply deserving of condemnation as yourselves, you aid 
their cause, saying, that they distinguish the flesh of Christ 
from the community of our nature ; just as if they admit- 
ted Christ to have flesh, which could in any way be distin- 
guished from ours. Leave then the Manichasans, who dif- 
fer much from both you and us as to the flesh of Christ, 
and deal with us in your discussion of the matter, because 
with us you confess the flesh of Christ, though after a dif- 
ferent manner. For neither do we distinguish the flesh of 
Christ from the community of the nature and substance of 
our flesh, but from the community of its viciousness. For 
our flesh is sinful flesh, on account of which his is called, 
not the likeness of flesh, because it is real flesh, but the 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



245 



likeness of sinful flesh, because sinful flesh it is not. If, then, 
our flesh were not sinful flesh, how, I ask, could the flesh 
of Christ be the likeness of sinful flesh ? Are you so utterly 
wild as to say that a thing can be like, when nothing exists 
to which it is like ? Hear Hilary, a Catholic doctor, whom, 
whatever you may think of him, you certainly cannot call 
a Manichaean, who, when speaking of the flesh of Christ , 
says — 4 Therefore, when he was sent in the likeness of sin- 
ful flesh, as he had flesh, so had he not sin ; but because 
all flesh is from sin, derived namely from the sin of Adam, 
he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, there being in 
him, not sin, but the likeness of sinful flesh.' What wilt 
thou say to this, thou double distilled extract of the super- 
sublimated quintessence of all that is disgraceful in contro- 
versy ? Was Hilary too a Manichaean ? But let me not be 
angry at your reproaches, which I receive in common, not 
only with Hilary and other ministers of Christ, but even 
with the very flesh of Christ, to which you have not feared 
to offer such a reproach as to dare to make it equal to the 
other flesh of men, which it is certain is sinful, unless it 
be falsely said that Christ came in the likeness of sinful 
flesh."i 

1 Manichaei non sunt, qui carnem Christi a naturse nostra? communione dis- 
tinguunt ; sed qui nullam carnem Christum habuisse contendunt Nobis ita- 
que jungendo Manichaeos, anathemandos vobiscum atque damnandos, etiam 
eorum sublevas causam, dicens eos carnem Christi a naturse nostras commu- 
nione distinguere : quasi carnem Christum habere fateantur, quam quoquo 
modo a nostra carne distinguant. Dimitte illos multum a nobis, multumque 
et a vobis, in isti de carne Christi distantes ; nobiscum age quod agis ; quia 
nobiscum carnem Christi, etsi dissimihtu, confiteris. Nec nos enim earn a na- 
turae atque substantia? carnis nostras, sed a vitii communione distinguimus. 
Caro est enim nostra peccati : propter quod ilia dicta est, non similitudo car- 
nis quia vera caro est ; sed similitudo camis peccati, quia peccati cara non est. 
Si ergo peccati caro, caro nostra non esset ; quomodo, rogo te, similitudo carnis 
peccati caro Christi esset ? An usque adeo desipis, ut dicas aliquid simile esse, 
sed cui simile sit non esse ? Hilarium audi catholicum antistitem quern certe. 
quidquid de illo sentias, Manichasum non potes dicere : qui cum de Christi 
carne loqueretur, " Ergo cum missus est, inquit, in similitudine carnis peccati. 
non sicut carnem habuit, ita habuit et peccatum ; sed quia ex peccato om- 
nis caro est, a peccato scilicet Adam parente deducta, in similitudine peccati 
carnis est missus, exsistente in eo, non peccato, sed peccati carnis similitudine." 



246 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



This may be considered as the dying testimony of Au- 
gustine, as it occurs near the end of a work which he left 
unfinished at his death. It will be seen with what irre- 
pressible detestation he speaks of the doctrine of the sin- 
fulness of the Saviour's flesh, and how he pours out upon 
Julian for giving an interpretation of the text under discus- 
sion, which naturally leads to that doctrine, a string of su- 
perlatives which would have graced the iron style of the 
stern Tertullian. And when the aged saint was thus de- 
scending into the grave, with a protest against so impious 
a tenet on his lips, could he possibly anticipate that men 
would arise so devoted to that tenet, as to profane his me- 
mory, by attaching to his venerable name the infamy of 
maintaining a tenet which he characterizes in terms not 
more severe than they are just, as a " detestable heresy," 
and as an " outrageous blasphemy?" And have his merits 
in the support of truth been so trifling, that his name may 
be connected, in open defiance of truth, with a tenet that 
ploughs up the very foundations of Christianity, while no 
hand is lifted up in his defence ? It would well become 
every Christian, who can handle a pen, to use that pen in 
encircling the name of Augustine with the motto — Noli me 
tangere. Shame on the man who can pass his cairn without 
adding a stone to it. With what justice he has been cited 
as a patron of the doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
will be farther seen by and by ; but, in the meantime, I 
think we may rest perfectly satisfied, that, after all the 
learned efforts to distort the phrase, " the likeness of sinful 
flesh," so as to wring from it any meaning save that which 
it so plainly expresses, likeness really means neither more 
nor less than likeness, and that, therefore, it is an undeni- 

Quid ad ista dicturus es, improbissime, loquacissime, contumeliosissime, ca- 
lumniosissime? Numquid et Hilarius Manichseus est ? Sed absit ut tuas acci- 
pere dedigner injurias, non solum cum Hilario, ceteris que ministris Christi, 
sed etiam cum ipsa carne Christi, cui tantam facere non expavescis injuriam, 
ut audeas earn cosequare ceteras hominum carni, quam earn em constat esse 
peccati; si non mendaciter dictum est, Christum in similitudine carnis 
venisse peccati. — Operis Imperfecti contra Julianum, Lib. vi. cap. 33. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



247 



able scriptural truth, that Christ came not in sinful flesh, 
but " in the likeness of sinful flesh." 

I would now refer to the declaration, " And being found 
in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obe- 
dient unto death, even the death of the cross." 1 The only 
remark that I find it necessary to make upon this verse is, 
that his humbling himself so as to become obedient unto 
death, is stated to have been subsequent to his being found 
in fashion as a man ; a statement directly opposed to the 
supposition that he unavoidably became subject to death 
when he became man. Even after he became man, his 
submitting to die was an act not of necessity, but of obe- 
dience ; — an act flowing not from the weakness of the na- 
ture assumed, which never bore down nor diminished the 
power of the Word, but from the condescension of his 
grace. If I may be permitted to add a practical commen- 
tary to this verse, I know of none equal to that furnished 
by the same writer : — " Ye know the grace of our Lord Je- 
sus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he 
became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." 2 

I beg the reader next to refer to Hebrews vii., and to 
read the first twelve verses, which would be too long here 
to copy. He will thus see that one of the points of dis- 
tinction between Christ and Levi is, that Levi paid tithes 
in Abraham, while Christ did not. Both, however, were 
alike in the loins of the patriarch when Melchizedek met 
him. It is plain, however, that the one was in his loins in 
a sense in which the other was not. What constituted the 
difference is sufficiently obvious. Abraham was not only 
the natural progenitor, but the federal representative of 
Levi, and all the blessings conferred upon the latter were 
conferred upon him, in consequence of the covenant made 
with the former. Of Christ Abraham was also the natural 
progenitor ; the federal representative he was not. If he 
had been so, then had it been as true of Christ as of Levi, 



i Philip, ii. 8. 



2 2 Cor. viii. 9. 



248 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



that he paid tithes in Abraham, and was also blessed in 
him ; and, consequently, as " without all contradiction, the 
less is blessed of the better," Melchizedek was not the 
type, but the superior of Christ ; and blessed not only him 
who " had the promises," but him also who gave the pro- 
mises, and upon whose atonement the fulfilment of them all 
depends. Now, if Christ did not pay tithes in Abraham, 
as Levi did, for the same reason he did not fall in Adam, 
as all other men did. The total and utter absurdity, not 
of this or that doctrine of Christianity, but of the whole 
system, which necessarily and directly flows from the sup- 
position that Christ was federally represented by, and fell 
in Adam, I need not stop to point out. It is sufficient to 
remark, that he was and could be in Adam no otherwise 
than he was in Abraham. Tucker, the father of the heresy 
that Christ took a sinful nature, says, " When it is declared 
that in Adam all have sinned, no exception is made of him." 
He is, however, mistaken. The exception which is taken 
to his having paid tithes in Abraham is an exception which 
applies, with unabated force, to his having sinned in Adam. 
It may be urged, and indeed has been urged, that when 
Abraham paid tithes, Christ not only did not pay them, 
but was actually the person who received them. Upon 
this, however, I do not insist. It is quite enough to take 
the declaration of the apostle that he did not pay them ; 
and, consequently, that for the same reason he did not fall 
in Adam. Indeed, that he fell in Adam, and became in- 
volved in all the consequences of the fall, just as much as 
any other of his race ; and that having first, as the seed of 
the fallen man, become liable to all these consequences, he 
then appeared to him, and promised that, as the " seed of 
the woman," he would deliver him from the consequences, 
is a supposition so utterly repugnant to both Scripture and 
sense, so perfectly wild, that I shall not waste either my 
own time, or that of my reader, in any examination of it. 
Let those who insist that he fell in Adam show, if they can, 
how he was in Adam when he fell in a different sense from 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES* 



249 



that in which he was in Abraham when he paid tithes, and 
then the notion may be worth considering. 

If, then, he neither fell nor sinned in Adam, did he sin 
personally? This will not be said ; for though arguments 
are addressed to the public in support of the tenet that he 
was fallen and sinful, which go directly and unavoidably to 
prove, that if he were not the chief of sinners, he cannot 
save the chief of sinners ; yet that he ever personally sin- 
ned will be, and has been vehemently, denied. The con- 
clusion then appears to me to be inevitable, that if he nei- 
ther fell nor sinned in Adam, nor ever fell or sinned person- 
ally, then he was never fallen and sinful. 

I would next refer to the doom denounced against the 
man who u hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and 
hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
sanctified, an unholy thing," literally, " a common thing, 11 
xoivov. 1 Now, how are they who maintain that the huma- 
nity of Christ was fallen sinful humanity, to escape this 
doom ? For if to count his blood the blood of a fallen sin- 
ful man, such as we are, be not to count it a common thing, 
then I know not how that sin can be committed. I am 
well enough aware that it may be said, that the apostle is 
liere condemning merely a practical irreverence for the 
blood of Christ. But, even supposing this to be true, it 
is very plain, that where a practice is bad, the doctrine that 
sanctions it is still worse. 

Let us now read the following passage : — " That which 
was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we 
have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and 
our hands have handled, of the Word of life ; (for the Life 
was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and 
show unto you that Eternal Life which was with the Fa- 
ther, and was manifested unto us ;) that which we have 
seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
fellowship with us ; and truly our fellowship is with the 
Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ." 2 The purpose for 

1 Hebrews x. 29. 21 1 1. 

L2 



250 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



which I quote this passage does not require me to enter in- 
to any lengthened commentary upon it. It will be ob- 
served, that the apostle begins his Epistle in the same man- 
ner as he begins his Gospel, stating at once, and without 
preamble, the most important proposition which he means 
to maintain. He commences the Gospel by declaring the 
Divinity of the Word. Here he has in his eye those who 
denied the humanity of our Lord, maintaining that he was 
a mere phantom, into which the iEon Christ descended at 
his baptism, and dwelt for the purpose of making himself 
visible. He, therefore, commences his Epistle in the same 
bold abruptness of style which he had used in his Gospel, 
declaring the reality of our Lord's humanity ; asserting that 
it was no phantom made perceptible to one of our senses, 
but a reality cognizable by them all, — something to be 
heard, and felt, and handled, as well as seen. It was, we 
may reasonably suppose, in consequence of this strong and 
decisive testimony, that some of the Docetse, who believed 
the humanity of Christ to be a mere phantom, were led to 
say that that phantom was so compacted, by a particular 
operation of God, as to be not only visible, but also pal- 
pable, and even passable, as Irenseus tells us that some of 
them taught. Now, if the tenet that the humanity of 
Christ was not only real, but fallen sinful humanity, be not 
only true, but be the foundation of all sound doctrine, as 
we are assured that it is, then here the apostle might not 
merely have been expected to teach it, but was imperiously 
required to teach it, and that in terms as direct and unam- 
biguous, as those in which he teaches the reality of that 
humanity. How cordially he detested, and how zealously 
he opposed, the heresy which denies that " Christ has come 
in the flesh," no reader of this epistle needs to be told. 
How, then, does it happen that he omits distinctly to state, 
not only that he had come in the flesh, but that he had 
come in fallen sinful flesh ? Would our modern theologians 
have acted thus ? Would they have left the argument so 
lame, and such a vital doctrine so doubtfully expressed ? 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



251 



No. They profess to have discovered that the heresy 
which the apostle condemns has infected the Church at the 
present day. They may be right, though I have found no 
traces of it. It cannot, at least, be even pretended that the 
heresy is either so openly avowed, or carried to so perni- 
cious an extent, or productive of so fatal effects, as in the 
time of John. Yet though the danger is certainly less ur- 
gent, how cold, how feeble, how nerveless the language of 
this " Son of Thunder" upon the subject, when compared 
with the loud, the reiterated, the emphatic denunciations 
to which we are now accustomed against all who doubt or 
deny that Christ came in sinful flesh ! The character of 
that flesh they do not leave as a matter of doubtful import- 
ance. They do not merely state that he was really man, 
leaving it to be inferred that therefore he must have been 
a fallen sinful man, an inference which all reason and all 
Scripture disowns ; but they state that he was fallen and 
sinful with a distinctness, and urge it with an earnestness, 
which shows how very far, — if the tenet be true, — the holy 
apostle was inferior to them in knowledge of the truth, and 
in zeal for its interests. 

If it be true that the humanity of our Lord was fallen 
sinful humanity, there is no avoiding this severe and pain- 
ful reflection upon the apostle. He saw the heresy which 
denies that Christ had come in the flesh, raging like "the 
destruction that wasteth at noon- day," perverting the 
principles, and overthrowing the faith of many. And yet, 
while he most distinctly teaches the reality of Christ's 
flesh, he neglected to teach, — he has no where distinctly 
said, that that flesh was fallen and sinful. This is bad, 
but what is still worse, he has most distinctly taught the 
very reverse. He has not more clearly taught the reality 
of Christ's flesh, than he has taught its perfect freedom 
from all smfulness. For what is it that was seen, and 
heard, and handled ? ~Not the Divinity surely, but the 
humanity of our Lord. Yet that which was seen, and 
heard, and handled, was " the Word of Life," 44 the Life," 
u Eternal Life." While he strongly asserts the reality of 



252 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



his flesh, he no less strongly guards against the equally- 
fatal extreme of supposing it to be fallen sinful flesh ; and, 
therefore, studiously accumulates upon that humanity 
which was seen, and heard, and felt, all the epithets which 
more peculiarly belong to the Divine nature, but which, 
from the indivisible unity of his person, the Apostle shows 
may with perfect propriety be applied to either nature ; a 
rule which, as I have already had occasion to remark, is 
observed by all the sacred writers, to the utter condemna- 
tion of the doctrine of his fallen manhood. And as he 
commences, so does he close his epistle with the declara- 
tion that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, u is the true God 
and Eternal Life." It is not Jesus apart, nor Christ apart, 
but Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who is u the true God 
and Eternal Life." The heresy which teaches that the 
humanity of our Lord was fallen and sinful, could not well 
be more effectually met, than by a continued comment 
upon the whole of this most delightful and instructive 
epistle. This, however, would be altogether out of place 
here ; I therefore proceed to another passage of Scripture, 
and the only other which I shall produce on the present 
occasion. 

The passage to which I refer is the following : — " For- 
asmuch, then, as the children are partakers of flesh and 
blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same ; 
that through death he might destroy him that had the 
power of death, that is, the devil ; and deliver them who, 
through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to 
bondage. For verily he taketh not hold of angels, but of the 
seed of Abraham he taketh hold. Wherefore, in all things 
it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he 
might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things per- 
taining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the 
people." 1 In verse 14, the apostle states the fact of the 

1 Hebrews ii. 14, It will be observed, that I have adopted the mar- 
ginal translation of verse 16, which I consider as being in this instance, as I 
think it is in a great majority of instances, very superior to that placed in 
the text- 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



253 



Incarnation, declaring that Christ became a partaker of 
flesh and blood. He then states the reason why he took 
flesh and blood, — that he might destroy death and him 
that had the power of death. He then shows why it was 
necessary that he should take human nature, rather than 
any higher created nature. He came not to help, but to 
subdue fallen angels. He came to help fallen men ; and, 
therefore, it behoved him to be made like to them. The 
result of the whole is a striking and an affecting con- 
trast between the sovereignty of God, who chose to save 
fallen man in preference to fallen angels, and the un- 
speakable goodness of God, who, in order to save men, 
assumed their nature. 

All this appears to me perfectly plain, and is the way in 
which I have always been accustomed to understand this 
passage, from a period long before the present controversy 
existed. I am perfectly aware, however, that there exists 
a strong indisposition to receive this view of the passage, 
even among those who are as little disposed to admit the 
sinfulness of Christ's humanity as I am. Their idea is, 
that if verse 16 be understood, as the common version 
naturally suggests, that Christ had power to choose 
whether he would assume the human or angelic nature, 
then his pre-existence is proved ; for he could not have 
chosen which he would assume, if he had not existed pre- 
vious to his assumption of either. But they suppose that 
if the marginal reading be admitted, and the meaning be 
that Christ saved not angels but men, then the verse fur- 
nishes no argument for his pre-existence. Hence Socini- 
ans are very anxious to maintain the accuracy of the mar- 
ginal reading, while the orthodox are no less anxious to 
vindicate the received text. Now, I would remark that, 
in translating or commenting upon a text of Scripture, we 
are not at liberty to depart from the plain literal meaning 
for the purpose of producing an argument against Socini- 
anism. Socinians do not, and cannot, pretend that the 
verse in question furnishes any argument in their favour. 



254 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



They merely hope, by maintaining the marginal reading, 
to escape a very direct argument against their system. 
Did the necessity of the case require, I should have no 
hesitation in giving up the argument for the pre-existence 
of our Lord that is drawn from this text ; because that 
is a doctrine so clearly and so emphatically interwoven 
into the Gospel, that if that doctrine be so doubtful, as to 
render it necessary to mistranslate or misinterpret a single 
text in support of it, we may as well give up Christianity 
altogether. But the fact is, that the pre-existence of 
Christ is as certainly and as decidedly — though not quite 
so obviously, I grant — taught by the ancient, as by the 
modern interpretation of the passage. If we should ever 
lose our argument, therefore, against Socinianism, by 
adopting the anciently received meaning of the text, that 
loss, amidst such abundance, is little to be regretted. Still 
less need we hesitate to admit that meaning, when, in 
reality, we are required to make no such sacrifice, as the 
passage, understood in either way, decidedly proves the 
pre- existence of Christ. 

With this view of the matter, I cannot admit that verse 
16 contains a declaration of the Incarnation. The follow- 
ing are my reasons. In the beginning of the passage 
quoted, the fact of the Incarnation is declared, together 
with the effect to be produced by it. The passage ends 
by declaring the ground upon which the Incarnation was 
necessary to the production of that effect. Now, to inter- 
pose between these, merely a reiterated declaration of the 
fact, is, at least as far as I can see, to introduce a bald 
unmeaning tautology, which neither results from what 
precedes it, nor leads to what follows, nor introduces one 
new idea ; for that the nature in which Christ appeared 
was not the angelic, but the human nature, I suppose the 
most prejudiced Jew did not need to be taught. But let 
verse 16 be a declaration of the fact, that it was the sove- 
reign will of God to extend to men that deliverance from 
death which he extended not to fallen angels, and that on 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



255 



this account it was necessary that he should, by Incarna- 
tion, be like unto those whom he adopted as his brethren, 
and then the verse both naturally flows from what precedes 
it, and naturally calls for the conclusion which follows it» 
Let the meaning now commonly insisted upon be admit- 
ted, and the following is no caricature, but a fair para- 
phrase of the train of reasoning employed: — "For as we 
are men, therefore, that he might destroy death, he also 
became a man, for he became not an angel but a man, 
therefore, it behoved him to become man." Adopt the 
ancient meaning, and a similar paraphrase will run thus : 
— " For as we are men, therefore, that he might destroy 
death he also became a man ; for as he came to save not 
angels, but men, therefore, it behoved him to become, not 
an angel, but a man." I cannot hesitate as to which of 
these two modes of reasoning I am to prefer. 

Another reason why I prefer the meaning derived from 
the marginal reading to that suggested by the received 
reading is, that the former is the ancient interpretation, 
adopted when there seemed to be no reason for adopting 
any other view than that naturally suggested by the words 
of the text ; whereas the latter was never heard of till the 
Vulgate by the use of the ambiguous word assumo, and the 
terror of Socinianism, furnished a very natural introduction 
to it. In support of this statement, it would be no difficult 
matter to accumulate testimonies from the Greek fathers ; 
but I suppose it will be perfectly sufficient to produce the 
testimony of Ernesti as quoted by Schleusner. The latter 
writer, citing the original of Heb. ii. 16, thus translates it, 
and comments upon it: — 4 For he assisted not angels, 
but the seed of Abraham, where tm'hai/Jlctvi&cLi is syno- 
nymous with £o'/i$Yi(roii in verse 18. Compare Ernesti's in- 
terpretation of the New Testament, p. 201, who teaches, 
that this is the only true and ancient interpretation given 
of this place by the whole Greek Church ; but that the 
common explanation of it concerning the incarnation, or 
of the assumption, not of the angelic, but human nature, 



256 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



arose among the Latins, who depended upon the word 
assumat, which the Vulgate uses.' 1 To the weight of the 
testimony borne by two such distinguished writers it is 
adding nothing to say, that from personal examination, I 
am perfectly satisfied as to the accuracy of that testimony ; 
and, as far as authority is concerned, I greatly prefer, es- 
pecially in such a case, the unbiassed interpretation of the 
Greek Church, to the biassed, — naturally and blamelessly 
biassed, I grant, — but still the biassed interpretation of the 
Latin Church. 

I prefer the former interpretation to the latter also, be- 
cause the former is the simple literal translation of the text, 
whereas we cannot get at the latter without an addition to 
the text, for which I can see no warrant. No rule, I 
apprehend, is better established than this, that we are not 
k at liberty to make any addition to a text, nor in the slight- 
est degree to depart from its plain literal meaning, without 
an obvious necessity. But where is the necessity here ? 
We make an addition to the text, for the purpose of intro- 
ducing an unmeaning repetition of the fact of the incarna- 
tion, which the apostle had just declared already ; while 
we utterly take away the argument by which he proves 
the necessity of the^ncarnation. He says, that because it 
was not angels, but men whom he helped, therefore was it 
necessary that he should be made like them. But let us 
alter the text of verse 16, so as to make it signify that 
Christ took not the angelic, but the human nature, and 
what follows is just repetition accumulated upon repeti- 
tion. He became not an angel, but a man, therefore it 
behoved him to be made a man. I cannot think that any 

1 Non enim angelis auxilium prsestitit, sed posterls Abrahami, ubi gT/- 
hocftQavevSoci est idem quod Q,OYi§Yiaoi>i verse 18. Comp. Ernesti Interpr. 
N. T. p. 201, qui docuit, hanc esse unice veram et antiquam totius ecclesise 
Grsecse hujus loci interpretationem, vulgarem vero de incarnatione, sen de 
assumtione naturse non angelicse, sed humanse, explicationem ortam esse ab 
Latinis, qui voce assumat, qua usus est Vulgatus nitebantnr. — Schleusneri 
Lexicon inN. T. sub voce i7ri7\ot>{6^ccy(ii. 



SCRIPT ORE TESTIMONIES. 



257 



addition to the text is authorised which brings out such 
reasoning as this. And, on the contrary, to say that be- 
cause men and not angels were the beings whom he helped, 
therefore it was necessary that he should become a man, 
does not strike me as being so defective as to require to be 
filled up at the expense of an addition to the text. 

Besides, if an addition is to be made to the text at all, 
is it quite certain that nature is the proper addition ? I 
think not. At least, if we are not to be bound by the let- 
ter of the text, I am quite as much at liberty to speculate 
upon what it ought to be as another ; and, therefore, I would 
propose that the interpolated word should be, not nature, 
but sins, and that the verse should be read thus, " For 
verily he took not on him the sins of angels ; but he took 
on him the sins of the seed of Abraham." And were it 
worth while to speculate upon the comparative merits of 
two equally unnecessary additions to the text, I cannot 
think that it would be at all difficult to show the great 
superiority of the latter word to the former. 1 

These reasons have always appeared to me very deci- 
sively to establish the superiority of the ancient over the 
modern interpretation of the passage : and in this view of 
it I have felt, and still feel, myself perfectly entitled, nay, 
imperiously bound, to consider it as expressive "of the glo- 
rious and consummating exemplification of a principle, the 
exemplification of which is often recorded in Scripture. 
The principle to which I refer is the preference of the 
younger to the elder. Of the two first-born of men, Cain 
and Abel, the younger was chosen, and the elder rejected. 
Of the three sons of Noah, the second great progenitor of 
mankind, Sheni, the youngest, was chosen as the heir of 

1 They who are accustomed to parallelism will probably find, that the pas- 
sage quoted, down to the word " brethren" in verse 17, forms a very perfect 
Epanodos, which, if I have arranged it correctly, is completely destroyed by 
the modern interpretation of verse 16, against which I am contending. 
My arrangement of the passage I do not produce, as I am very far from rely> 
ing upon its correctness. 



258 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



promise. Of the two sons of Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, 
though the patriarch repeatedly prayed, " Oh that Ishmael 
might live before thee," it was said, " In Isaac shall thy 
seed be called." Of the two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob, 
before they were born, it was said, " The elder shall serve 
the younger." Of the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim the 
younger was preferred to Manasseh the elder. Of the sons 
of Jesse, David the youngest, and whom his father did not 
even think it worth while to present to the prophet, was 
chosen to be king over Israel. And, to name no more, of 
all the sons of David, Solomon was chosen to build a 
temple to the Lord. 

Now, a fact of this nature so frequently occurring, and 
so sedulously recorded, must be considered as pointedly in- 
tended to direct our attention to the principle involved in 
it ; and the Apostle Paul, in expounding one of these in- 
stances, has taught us how we are to understand all the 
rest. They are intended to manifest the sovereignty of 
the Lord, — to show that he seeth not as man seeth, nor 
chooseth as man would choose, — to show that all power 
and all excellency are from God alone. And, therefore, 
" God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to con- 
found the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of 
the world to confound the things that are mighty ; and 
base things of the world, and things which are despised 
hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring 
to nought the things that are." And why? u That no 
flesh should glory in his presence," — that all should own 
that whatever grace, or goodness, or excellency, is in them, 
it is not from themselves but from God ; and that if they 
differ from others, it is God alone that maketh them to 
differ. This principle, then, which is involved in the pre- 
ference of the younger to the elder, and to which our at- 
tention is directed not once nor twice, but many times, is 
seen in all the dispensations of God, that his own sove- 
reignty may be manifested in them all. Thus, while every 
thing in the works of men has a natural tendency to dege- 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



259 



nerate, God has from the beginning shown that his works 
have a very different character ; and are continually going 
on from good to better in endless progression ; and that 
one dispensation only prepares the way for, and gives 
place to, one that is more perfect. Thus, the patriarchal 
dispensation prepared the way for the Mosaic ; the Mosaic 
for the Christian ; the present state of the Christian for its 
millennial state ; and that for something still more glo- 
rious. And thus when the Gospel was first established, it 
was not by the wisdom, the wealth, or the power of man, 
but by feeble means in opposition to all these, lest its suc- 
cess should have been attributed to the efficacy of the 
means, rather than to the power of God. The treasure 
was committed to earthen vessels, that the excellence of 
its power might be seen to be of God. 

All these are striking manifestations of the sovereignty 
of God. They are, however, partial, and limited, and ob- 
scure exhibitions of it, when compared with the universal 
and glorious manifestation of it referred to in the passage 
under discussion, where the choice lay not between one indi- 
vidual and another, not between one nation and another, but 
between two lost worlds. There stood before God two 
fallen families, — fallen angels and fallen man. Alike they 
were doomed to woe for their sins, and unless an Almighty 
arm should lay hold on them, alike would they both have 
sunk in remediless ruin. It belonged to God alone to de- 
termine whether he would save one or both of these fami- 
lies, or leave them both to perish. And when he had an- 
nounced his intention to save one of these families, that 
the work of their redemption might afford a new manifes- 
tation of the divine perfections, and give a more clear and 
more glorious revelation of these perfections than his crea- 
tures could even otherwise have seen, it still remained with 
him to determine which of the two fallen families should 
be chosen as the objects in whose salvation this manifesta- 
tion should be made. And well does it become us to re- 
joice that here also the principle to which our attention is 



260 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



so carefully directed throughout the whole course of Scrip- 
ture, and so carefully directed that we might not fail to 
see, in this case, its most glorious exemplification, was 
acted upon. The younger was preferred to the elder; 
fallen men were chosen to salvation ; fallen angels were 
left to perish ; though carnal judgment would probably 
have made the choice to fall on the elder, and originally 
nobler family ; and would have left the meaner creature of 
clay to perish. This is the glorious and happy truth, so 
clearly and so pointedly expressed by the apostle when he 
saith, " He taketh not hold of angels ; but of the seed of 
Abraham he taketh hold." He plainly expresses the un- 
speakable majesty of the Divine Sovereignty in choosing 
fallen men as the objects of that work of redemption, 
which, beyond all things else, reveals his own glorious 
character, rather than fallen angels, who, to the eye of 
sense, might perhaps seem to have a better claim. And 
with this view of the Divine Sovereignty, he combines the 
equally- astonishing view of the unspeakable condescension 
of the Divine love. Of one of these fallen families, who 
are alike in his hands, and not one word in favour of either 
of which might any created being venture to speak, he 
saith, " Let them be reserved in chains of darkness to the 
judgment of the great day ;" while of the other he saith, 
" Deliver from going down into the pit, for I have found 
out a ransom." Here is his sovereignty. And what is 
the ransom for the race to be redeemed? " Without the 
shedding of blood is no remission." The eternal Son, 
therefore, becomes man, becomes partaker of flesh and 
blood, similar in all respects, sinfulness excepted, to the 
creatures of clay whom he came to redeem, and voluntarily 
submits to die in their stead, that they may live. Here is 
the depth of his love. And if it was a striking proof of 
the free and sovereign goodness of God, that he chose 
Israel when they were but "few men in number," — " the 
fewest of all people," how much more illustrious a display 
of the same grace and goodness did he give, when he chose. 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



261 



men in preference to angels as the objects of redemption , 
when these creatures of clay were few indeed, — the whole 
race consisting of only two individuals ! Who would have 
said, or who could have ventured to think, that these two 
would be chosen in preference to a world of fallen angels ? 
Any created judgment would have said, What are tnese two 
feeble individuals, that they should for a moment be put 
into the scale against a multitude of angels ? If one of the 
fallen races may be saved, surely there cannot be a mo- 
ment's hesitation as to which it should be. Of what con- 
sequence can be the loss of two earthly creatures who may 
be so destroyed that none shall ever spring from them, 
compared with the loss of so many superior creatures? 
But God determined in a different manner. He took not 
hold of fallen angels, but of fallen men he took hold. And 
why? "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
sight." 

And while the apostle is thus contrasting all that is 
venerable in the sovereignty of God, with all that is attrac- 
tive in his love, he leads us to see why, in that revelation 
of the Divine perfections, which the redemption of fallen 
creatures alone could afford, the existence of more than 
one fallen race was necessary. Had there been but one 
fallen race, the lessons taught by the redemption of that 
race would have been taught imperfectly. It might have 
been supposed that there was something in the character 
of God, or in the situation of the fallen creature, or in the 
nature of sin, which rendered the offer of redemption, on 
the part of God, a matter not of choice but of necessity ; 
and thus the sovereignty of God in the pardon of sin could 
not have been seen, nor could the danger and the hateful- 
ness of sin have been displayed. 

From this passage, too, we are led to see one reason 
why fallen men were chosen to salvation rather than fallen 
angels. For though we cannot in this world know the 
whole either of the grounds or of the results of the work of 

redemption, yet it is our duty and our privilege to trace 



262 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



them as far as we can. And I trust that it is not rashly 
intruding into things not seen, nor rudely violating the 
sanctity of that which God hath kept secret, nor speculat- 
ing too curiously upon the designs of him who " giveth no 
account of his matters," to say, that had angels been 
selected as the objects of redemption, the lessons taught by 
redemption would have been the same, but they would not 
have been so impressively nor so extensively taught. Not 
so impressively ; because, had the goodness of God been 
exhibited in the redemption of fallen angels, it might still 
have been doubted whether its extent were infinite, — 
whether it could have gone down to the lowest order of 
rational creatures, and have embraced even us worms of 
the dust in its ample range. Not so extensively ; for, had 
fallen angels been chosen as the objects of redemption, then 
that work would have been transacted in a sphere alto- 
gether beyond our view, and beyond the reach of our know- 
ledge ; so that at least one rational family of God, man, 
would have been left without any of that knowledge of 
him, which that work alone is capable of conveying. 
Whereas, when man was chosen as the object of redemp- 
tion, the lessons taught by that work were taught to all 
the rational creatures of God. And the fact that now the 
character of God is known, as perfectly as created beings 
can know it, both to fallen and to unfallen angels, needs 
no proof. That it is through the work of redemption, — a 
work traced with intense interest by both, that this perfect 
knowledge is communicated, is suggested by almost every 
page of Scripture. That it stamps the fate of one class 
with the ineffaceable seal of despair ; and that it gives to 
the other class an immoveable ground of assurance, that 
they shall never sin and never suffer, might, I think, be 
clearly established, did the present subject authorise any 
speculations on the matter. The text under discussion very 
plainly states the necessity of the Saviour's taking the 
nature of those whom he came to save. He helped not 
angels but men, and, therefore, the assumption of man- 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



263 



hood was necessary. For the same reason, had he helped 
angels, we must conclude that it would have been neces- 
sary that he should have become an angel. Not a hint, 
however, is given that in this case he must have become a 
fallen angel, that is, a devil ; and neither is the remotest 
hint given that when he helped fallen men, he must of 
necessity become a fallen man. When he became man he 
became cognizable by man. His words were audible to 
human ears ; his deeds were visible to human eyes. Possess- 
ing all the reality of our nature, — made flesh, and dwelling 
among us, we could behold his glory, " the glory as of the 
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth ;" — he 
could manifest to us all the glories of the Godhead, while, 
being man, his " terror did not make us afraid." But if 
we go beyond this and say, that in order to help sinful 
men, he must become a sinful man ; we must go still far- 
ther and say, that to help the chief of sinners, he himself 
must become the chief of sinners. The necessity for his 
becoming man is obvious ; for we could have learned no- 
thing from, and received no atonement by, and have re- 
posed no hope upon, one whom we could neither hear, nor 
see, nor know. That he should be fallen and sinful, to 
enable him to bring within the range of our observation 
and knowledge the revelation which he came to make, 
cannot even be pretended ; unless it be maintained that 
an unfallen man could not make himself as audible and 
visible to us as a fallen man. And still less, I should 
think, can it be supposed that to be fallen and sinful were 
necessary to endue him with, or, indeed, were capable of 
existing in communion with, — though that is strongly 
maintained, — that perfect purity which was necessary to 
him both as Priest and a Sacrifice. 

Hence, too, we see also what it is that constitutes at 
once the danger and the dignity of man. God has permitted 
a rebellion to be raised against his authority, that in the 
progress of putting it down, he might give a manifestation 
of his perfections, which otherwise could not have been 



264 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



given. And our world is the field on which the powers 
of light and of darkness draw ont their forces in hostile 
array : and in that awful conflict which so deeply en- 
gages and interests the attention of the whole universe, 
the post of danger and of glory, — the van of the battle is 
assigned to man. Everywhere is the contest carried on. 
The human heart is itself the principal scene of strife ; 
and the soul of man is the victor's prize ; and man himself 
is the chief gainer or sufferer by the result. Angels " go 
forth as ministering spirits to minister to them that shall 
be heirs of salvation ; " and doubtless delight to promote, 
as far as may be in their power, the work of our salva- 
tion. A thousand worlds require instruction as to the 
character of God ; and it is through the medium of man 
that the instruction is conveyed. It is to the abode of 
men that angels go forth, both that they may learn their 
Maker's character, and perform their Maker's will. And 
cheering and animating as it is to know, that holy angels 
do go forth to our aid, and doubtless do render us essential 
support, though at present we can neither know the ser- 
vices that they do us, nor the means by which they do 
them ; yet we cannot forget that they mingle, not as 
principals, but only as auxiliaries in the strife ; that ours 
is the danger in the war, and ours is the gain of the vic- 
tory. 

And who is he who mustereth the armies of the Lord of 
Hosts ? Who is the Captain of Salvation, by whose 
strength they are made strong, — in whose might they are 
enabled to conquer ? Who makes them to triumph over 
principalities and powers, over the rulers of the darkness 
of this world, over spiritual wickednesses in high places ? 
Who is he who so fully accomplished, under circumstan- 
ces of incalculably greater difficulty, that which the " first 
man" had failed to accomplish ? Was he one who, at his 
coming into this world, was generated by the immediate 
act of God, not only liable to, but actually burdened with, 
all the weight of that displeasure which God ever beareth 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 265 

against all that is sinful ; and by God brought into per- 
sonal union with that abominable thing which God hates? 
No. God calleth hiru, " Mine elect, in whom my soul de- 
lighteth ;" "My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
Can we suppose that he, in whose eyes the heavens are 
not clean, and before whom the angels veil their faces 
with their wings, while in lowly adoration they ascribe 
holiness to their Maker, would address, or could address, 
such language as this to him who, like ourselves, was fall- 
en and sinful; and who differed not, by however little, 
from ns, in alienation and guiltiness? Could it be ad- 
dressed to one who himself needed to be reconciled to 
God before he could reconcile others ? No. When man 
was made, Satan had come into the world, boasting that 
he had led principalities and powers into sin ; and shall 
this creature of clay stand ? And the easiness of his con- 
quest, and the completeness of his dominion, left for 
a time the wisdom and the power of God in doubt, and 
gave apparently abundant ground for the reflection, that 
man was a being who had been most unadvisedly made ; 
and that such a being had been most unwisely placed 
within the reach of his assault, who had prevailed even 
upon angels to rebel. He had found one man who was 
made after the image of God, and in whom he had no- 
thing, and he soon implanted sinfulness in him, and made 
him an easy prey. He is now compelled to meet, on the 
field of his own conquered and polluted world, the Second 
Man, coming in all the untainted sinlessness of the First 
Man, but surrounded with difficulties, and exposed to 
trials of which the First Man, had he retained his inno- 
cence, could have had no experience ; and yet so mightily 
upheld by the Godhead dwelling in him in all its fulness, 
that Satan and all his powers could find nothing in him, 
and could implant nothing in him, with which they might 
claim alliance, else most assuredly had he also become 
their prey. And when Satan had tried him, and had found 
nothing in him, then did he stir up his agents to plot his 

M 



266 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



destruction ; not knowing that the death of Christ was 
the appointed means of his own destruction ; that when 
Christ gave a life which he did not owe, and which no 
power could take from him, the life of a world dead in sin 
was restored ; — that when he entered voluntarily into the 
dominion of death, he entered there as a conqueror, and 
that dominion was for ever broken. 

And if the events of any war are calculated to arouse 
our attention, and deeply to interest our feelings, surely 
much more is that war calculated to do so, where more 
than blood may be spilt, and more than empire may be 
lost or won. When our own countrymen are abroad in 
the field, — when the interests of our own country are at 
stake, with what anxious expectation are the news of 
every day waited for : and when they inform us that the 
hostile armies are approaching each other, with what pal- 
pitating eagerness are they read ! And when the day 
does come that brings their power to actual trial and de- 
cision, with what feelings do we read and re-read the 
minutest details, and dwell upon every incident, and find 
every thing, however trifling, possess a deep importance 
from its connection with such a scene ! They are our 
countrymen, our friends, our brothers, whom we view ar- 
ranged on the " cloudy edge of battle ere it join," and who, 
under our eye, are passing into the fatal contest. We 
hear from afar " the thunder of the captains and the shout- 
ing." We place ourselves side by side with the warrior, 
as he advances to the shock where, point to point, and 
man to man, the embattled squadrons close in deadly 
strife ; and while life and death hang in dreadful suspense, 
our feelings are just the warrior's own, and our very nos- 
trils become expanded with the intensity of a sensation 
that hardly permits us to breathe, and every pulsation of 
our heart bounds in perfect unison with the boundings of 
his. It is useless at such a moment to enter into a dis- 
cussion of the goodness or badness of the cause contested, 
or to philosophize on the manifold crimes and atrocities 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



267 



of war. When we have imbibed the very spirit of the 
warrior, when we are glorying, exulting in the view, 
in the very feeling of an energy which no toils can weary, 
of an ardour which no difficulties can abate, of a courage 
which the multiplication of dangers only arouses into a 
deeper intensity of daring ; at such a moment the coldness 
of our moral calculations is melted away; the voice of 
reason and of philosophy is drowned ; the " rap toes of the 
strife" are all our own ; and to no voice can we listen, 
till " the earthquake voice of victory" bursts upon our ear. 
I ask not if this be a Christian or a righteous feeling. I 
am merely stating a fact of which every man must be con- 
scious, that on such an occasion such are our feelings. 
Nor is the art of the poet or of the orator requisite to 
awaken them. The interest lies in the facts themselves, 
and the dry details of a despatch, or the prosaic insipidity 
of a gazette, has doubtless often been read with an in- 
tensity of interest which the most animated poetry never 
excited. 

But while there are few who do not in some degree ex- 
perience these feelings, there are many who are totally 
dead and insensible to the feelings that should naturally 
be awakened by a much more important and eventful war, 
— that moral and spiritual war which is carried on around 
us and within us, where more than mortal powers are op- 
posed, and more than mortal interests are at stake. But 
whatever we may be, the angels who have become ac- 
quainted with the character of God, through the work of 
man's redemption, are not insensible to the progress of 
that work. They surround the throne of the Most High, 
with golden harps in their hands ; and the events which 
awaken these harps to heavenly harmony, and pour from 
their strings that melody, to which God condescends to 
listen, and which mortal ear may never hear, are just the 
triumphs of " the redeemed of the Lord" over the influ- 
ence of that " other lord" who has had dominion over 
them ; and whose chains they have been enabled to burst 



268 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES. 



through the power of him, who, amidst all the weakness of 
human flesh, and under all the weight of the guilt of a lost 
world, and all the deadliest efforts of Satan's power, never 
fell, and never sinned, and never felt one unholy desire or 
emotion. "And the spirits of the just made perfect," 
clothed in the spotless robe of a Redeemer's righteousness, 
feel it their glorious privilege to tell how they have mani- 
fested the glories of the Lord, by the toils which they have 
been enabled to sustain in fighting the good fight, — by the 
hardness which, as good soldiers of Christ Jesus, they have 
been strengthened to endure, — and by the resistless energy 
which they derived from the consciousness that when 
" Christ was formed in them the hope of glory," their 
hearts were enriched, not only with an uncorrupted, but 
with an incorruptible seed, — a principle which Satan could 
not subvert, nor death itself destroy. And can we hope 
to participate in their raptures, and to unite with them in 
singing the song of triumph and of praise to him who was 
slain, and who redeemed us out of every kindred, and tongue, 
and tribe, and nation, if we can contemplate the progress 
of the mighty warfare that is going on between the powers 
of light and of darkness*, with the most perfect apathy, as 
if we had no personal concern in the matter : and while 
we have an ear open to the most trivial news of the day, 
have neither an ear to hear, nor a heart to be interested 
in the events of this mighty war ; but listen to any men- 
tion of it, as if it were a matter of less importance than the 
savage encounters of ferocious hordes of barbarians on the 
banks of the Danube, or the shores of the Euxine ? 

On this subject I have only another remark to make : 
It is this ; that for man no middle fate is prepared, but 
happiness or misery in the extreme must be his. The 
selected instruments of carrying on that war which God 
condescends to wage with those that have rebelled against 
him ; the weak vessels of clay chosen by him to confound 
the mighty, through the power of him who was incarnate, 
for the purpose of securing even to us worms of the dust 



SCRIPTURE TESTIMONIES 



269 



the victory, and of humbling the pride of apostate angels, 
by making even us their conquerors ; — if, wearied with the 
toils of the warfare, or insensible to the glory of the vic- 
tory, we desert to the enemy, and continue his willing and 
unresisting slaves, then do we sink into condemnation un- 
der the weight of a criminality which even fallen angels 
could not contract ; for they at least have never treated 
the offered mercy of God with contempt. And well may 
they wonder to see in the human heart a blindness, a per- 
versity, a madness, which can despise even the offered 
friendship of God, and all the glories of heaven. And, on 
the other hand, they who, through faith in Christ, enter 
into the kingdom of heaven, enter there the admiration of 
angels, purchased with a price which for the fallen por- 
tion of their own order was never paid, and rescued out of 
dangers to which they themselves were never exposed ; 
and therefore do they glorify God in his saints, and admire 
him in all them that believe. 

Human nature is at this moment the highest of created 
natures, and more intimately united to the Godhead than 
any other ; and where our head is, there shall all his mem- 
bers in due time be. Let me entreat the reader then to 
recollect, that in a few short years he shall occupy that 
place, to which angels may look up with admiration ; or 
else that on which devils may look clown with the convic- 
tion, that they have been less guilty. Christ came to save, 
not fallen angels, but fallen man ; and higher than heaven 
is the portion of him for whom the Sovereign of the uni- 
verse became man, and shed his blood to redeem ; and 
lower than hell must be the fate of him, who, even at such 
a price, refused to be redeemed. How powerfully ought 
this awful, yet animating consideration to arouse us to 
hasten our escape from " the wrath that is to come," and 
to u resist even unto blood, striving against sin !" How 
powerfully does it enforce the admonition of the Apostle, 
u Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmove- 



270 



SCRIPTUKE TESTIMONIES. 



able, always abounding in the work of the Lord, foras- 
much as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the 
Lord I" 

To the texts of Scripture now quoted and commented 
upon, many more might be added were it at all necessary. 
But if those already produced be not sufficient to show that 
the human nature of Christ was not fallen and sinful, I 
must consider the attempt to establish this, or any point, 
on the authority of Scripture, to be desperate. 



CHAPTER VII. 



ON THE PHRASE 1 FALLEN NATURE.' 



I must now call the attention of the reader to a different 
view of the subject. In the course of this controversy, I 
have repeatedly had occasion to observe that human nature 
never fell. I have never entered into any discussion in 
proof of this remark, because I took it for granted that the 
remark need only to be made, in order to be at once ad- 
mitted. That this has been the case in some instances I 
have no doubt ; but I have no reason to suppose that there 
are not still some who cling to the phrase, and, therefore, 
a few remarks seem to be called for. The expression, 
fallen nature, is in common use for the purpose of express- 
ing the universality of human corruption ; but nothing can 
be more absurd than to reason upon the phrase, as if it were 
expressive of a metaphysical fact. Natiwe is not an acci- 
dent which may or may not be present in a being, but is 
the very essence of the being whose nature it is. It can, 
therefore, be produced by the direct act of God alone. It 
is capable of only two affections. It may be generated, 
and it may be destroyed. It admits of no alteration ; for 
when we speak of nature, alteration and destruction are 
perfectly synonymous terms. If a being were changed into 
a being of a different nature, it is clear that one nature 
would be destroyed and another generated. They who 
profess to be familiar with Greek philosophy, should be 
familiar also with all that can be said with regard to these 



272 ON THE PHRASE 4 FALLEN NATURE.' 

sentiments ; and they who can bring but a small portion 
of patient thinking to the subject, need not be indebted to 
either Greek philosophers or Christian fathers for informa- 
tion of so very simple a character. Now, it is clear that 
if nature cannot be the result of accident, but can proceed 
from the immediate act of God alone, then the fall of man 
could not affect his nature in the least. If the nature of 
man fell when man himself fell, some very singular results 
must follow. A few of them I shall notice. 

If, when man fell, his nature was changed, then it fol- 
lows of plain necessity, either that he was not man before 
the fall, or he was not man after it. Man may subsist in 
an endless variety of situations — may suffer and enjoy an 
endless variety of pains and of pleasures, and still be man. 
But change his nature, and he is man no longer. The 
most untutored savage that roams his native wilds, hardly 
to be distinguished from the beasts that he makes his prey, 
is a man ; and as certainly and as completely a man as 
the most exalted genius that ever extended the bounds of 
human knowledge, or did honour to human reason. They 
are as widely different as two beings well can be ; but 
they are inseparably united by the bonds of a common na- 
ture. The one cannot sink below it, nor can the other 
rise above it. In all things else they may differ ; but 
through whatever changes they may pass in this world, or 
in that which is to come, they are alike men. Now, Adam 
is distinctly called man before he fell ; and he is no less 
distinctly called man after that event. I am, therefore, 
compelled to infer that though his fall was so fearfully 
fatal and destructive, yet it affected not his nature at all. 
Indeed, if moral excellence or delinquency could alter the 
nature, then so far would the common axiom, that nature 
is the same in all, be from being true, that we must rather 
say, that there are not two men whose nature is the same. 

Again, we are fallen creatures, and, in consequence of 
our fall, are suffering creatures. But if our nature be fallen, 
then how are our sufferings to be accounted for ? We are 



ON THE PHRASE 4 FALLEN NATURE.' 273 

in a fallen condition : if our nature also be fallen, then our 
nature and our condition are perfectly congenial to one an- 
other, and suffering in this case is impossible. It is a law 
that pervades the whole universe, and applies to all the 
works of God, whether material or spiritual, whether ani- 
mate or inanimate, that the presence of some good is es- 
sential to the existence of suffering. Take away from any 
thing whatever all that is good in it, and you at the same 
time completely divest it of the very capacity of suffering. 
Look, for example, to a piece of wood in a state of decay : 
as long as any portion of it remains sound, that portion re- 
sists the progress of the corruption; and in having that 
resistance overcome by the superior power of the corrup- 
tion, it suffers ; while the part already decayed, already 
fully possessed by the corruption, offering no further re- 
sistance, suffers not. The same remark applies to our own 
bodies. An inflamed limb suffers intense pain ; but when 
mortification has taken place, when there is no longer any 
sound flesh to resist the progress of corruption, the pain 
ceases ; and the whole of the portion in which the corrup- 
tion has completed its operation, has lost all capability of 
suffering. In both these cases it is clear, that when the 
nature of the objects operated upon by corruption has beeii 
changed by means of that corruption, all capacity for suf- 
fering is completely extinguished. 

The same law extends to our souls. Extinguish all 
that is good in them, and you at the same time effectually 
extinguish the possibility of suffering. The hardened sin- 
ner obtains a short and deceitful repose by the suppres- 
sion, as far as he can, of every moral feeling. His repose 
will terminate by awakening in him the ceaseless undying 
feeling, the suppression of which constitutes his repose, 
that he is a man. When Colonel Gardiner groaned out in 
anguish, — " Oh, that I were that dog !" had he been able 
to accomplish his wish, — to divest himself of the nature of a 
man and assume that of a dog, every one sees that the 
anguish which dictated the wish would have instantane- 

m 2 



274 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 

ously ceased ; and lie would have enjoyed his career of 
licentiousness without a check. It is evident that there 
was still something good in him ; and that the existence 
of that good was just what caused his anguish. Could he 
have got completely rid of that good, he would at the 
same time have got rid of his sufferings. But nature would 
not change at his bidding ; and, therefore, he found no rest 
till he found it there where alone the Author of nature has 
placed it, in Christ Jesus. In the same way, when Satan 
said, "Evil, be thou my good," every one sees that, could 
he have realized his resolution, and have made evil to be 
really his good, his sufferings would instantly have ceased. 
But that he is totally incapable of doing. He is a fallen 
angel ; but, unhappily for him, he is still an angel, and, 
therefore, a sufferer. He cannot change that nature which 
obeys the power of him alone by whom it was produced. 
He cannot contract himself within its limits, so as to 
escape any portion of the sufferings which an angel is cap- 
able of enduring ; neither can he go beyond these limits, 
so as to rise superior to these sufferings. Nature, an un- 
alterable nature, forms the indisruptible chain which binds 
him down to the rack. Change his nature, make it a fallen 
nature suitable to his fallen condition, and you break his 
chain and extinguish his sufferings. 

It is evident, then, that, in fallen angels and in fallen 
men, there still remains something good ; something which, 
unaffected by the fall, renders them sensible to all its suf- 
ferings. And what is good in either but "that nature which 
God created good, and which no accident and no power 
can alter ? In us fallen creatures its every operation is ob- 
structed, impeded, opposed. It is doomed by the misery 
of our fallen condition to hold ceaseless converse with all 
that is most abhorrent to it. And in the course of our re- 
novation, during the process of extinguishing that law im- 
planted in our flesh which holds nature a prisoner, and of 
setting the captive free, and restoring it to the unimpeded 
exercise of all its native powers, how deep is the sorrow 



ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE. 7 275 

that it awakens on every instance of the prevalence of un- 
subdued corruption? and how delightful the feeling on 
every instance of its free and unfettered movement toward 
the great Father of our spirits ? The corruption that we de- 
rive from a fallen progenitor forms no part of human nature, 
as the sufferings which it inflicts upon us abundantly testify. 
Human nature existed in Adam before he fell. It exists 
in us, his fallen children, now. It exists in the redeemed 
of the Lord, who enjoy all the blessedness of the kingdom 
of heaven. It exists in those who are driven away in 
their wickedness, and have no longer room to hope. From 
the height of heaven to the depth of hell, men exist in an 
endless variety of the most opposite conditions ; but in all 
these conditions still they are men, and their nature unal- 
terably human. 

From all this, two conclusions appear to be clearly de- 
ducible. The one is, that if the Eternal Word, in becoming- 
man, took a fallen nature, he took not our nature, which is 
not, nor by any possibility could be, fallen. The other is, 
that if he took a fallen nature, then there is no accounting 
for his sufferings. He placed himself in that situation into 
which man had brought himself by sin. He sustained all 
the penal effects of the fall. But if he had a fallen nature, 
these effects were wholly agreeable to that nature, and 
must have been productive of enjoyment rather than suf- 
fering. On the contrary, it appears to me, that his suffer- 
ings possessed an intensity which we cannot fully estimate, 
just because he possessed, even in his humanity, a purity 
and holiness of which we can form no estimate. His 
nature was exactly the same as ours. But in us the ope- 
rations of that nature are obstructed and perverted. We 
can live strangers to God, and cut off from all communion 
with him, and never feel it. His countenance may not 
shine upon us, and yet we may not mourn for, nor be 
sensible of, the misery of such a separation from the foun- 
tain of all good. We can lie under the burden of a thou- 
sand sins, and yet be at perfect ease. But in Christ the 



276 ON THE PHRASE c FALLEN NATURE.' 

human nature was not obstructed and perverted in its ope- 
rations by that law of the flesh which dwells in fallen man, 
for he took not a human person, but only a human nature ; 
and, therefore, when he was tried by the contradiction of 
sinners against himself, and had the guilt of our iniquities 
laid upon him, and the sensible tokens of his Father's pre- 
sence withdrawn from him, he must have experienced an 
anguish of which, at least till our nature be delivered from 
the bondage of corruption, we can form no adequate con- 
ception. 

I observe farther, that if human nature be fallen, then 
the fundamental principle of Manich^eus is an undeniable 
truth. That heresiarch — we must call him so, because 
he called himself an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ- 
maintained, as is well known, that there were two Creators ; 
the one good, from whom every good nature had its origin ; 
the other evil, from whom every evil nature had its origin. 
His grand argument in support of his doctrine, put in its 
simplest form, was this : An evil nature cannot by any 
possibility proceed from a good creator. There must of 
necessity, therefore, be an evil creator from whom every evil 
nature had its origin. He appears to have been a confused 
and feeble writer, incapable either of profound thinking or 
close reasoning. He, like many of his predecessors, no 
doubt, found it extremely difficult to account for the ori- 
gin of evil. He was not sufficiently simple to suppose, that 
after God had created a nature one thing, it could by the 
fall, or by any accident whatever, become another thing. 
He saw clearly enough that nature is not an accident, and 
cannot be accidentally produced. He cut the knot, there- 
fore, which he could not untie ; and determined that there 
must be an evil creator, since there are evil natures whose 
existence can no otherwise be accounted for. Now, grant 
him his fact, that there are evil natures, and his reasoning 
is incontrovertible : for an evil nature of necessity infers 
an evil creator. He was attacked by Augustine, who un- 
derstood the matter well, having once been a zealous Mani- 



ON THE PHRASE c FALLEN NATURE.' 



277 



chaean himself, arid was well acquainted with both the strong 
and the weak points of the system. 1 He assails him upon the 
fact, and strongly maintains, and, if I be any judge of rea- 
soning, decisively proves, that there is not, never was, nor 
by any possibility can be, any such thing as an evil nature, 
— that every nature, as far as it is a nature, is good. It 
is only a slight specimen of Augustine's reasoning that I 
can here introduce. It is, however, essentially necessary, 
to show his sentiments upon the subject in his own lan- 
guage. 

In one place he thus speaks, — u Whence any one who 
has eyes may see that every nature, in as far as it is a 
nature, is a good thing : because from one and the same 
thing, in which I find something to praise, and Manichasus 
something to blame, if those things which are good be 
taken away, there will be no nature ; but if those things 
which displease be taken away, the uncorrupted nature 
will remain. Take from water that it be not muddy and 
turbid, and pure and tranquil water will remain ; take from 
water the concord of its parts, and it will be water no 
longer. If, then, that which is evil being taken away, the na- 
ture remains more pure ; but that which is good being taken 
away, there remains no nature there ; that which is good 
forms the nature, while that which is evil is not nature, 
but contrary to nature." 2 He proceeds at much greater 

1 See note I. Appendix. 

2 Ex quo jam videt, qui potest videre, omneni naturam, in quantum natura 
est, bonum esse : quia ex una eademque re, in qua et ego quod laudarem, 
et ille quod vituperaret invenit, si tollantur ea quse bona sunt, nulla natura 
erit ; si autem tollantur ea quse displicent, in corrupta natura remanebit. 
Tolle de aquis ut non sint csenosse et turbidss, remanet aquse puree et tran- 
quillae : tolle de aquis partium concordiam, non erunt aquaa. Si ergo malo 
illo adempto manet natura purgatior, bono autem detracto non manet ulla 
natura ; hoc ibi facit naturam quod bonum habet ; quod autem malum, non 
natura, sed contra naturam est. — Contra Epistolam Manichcei, cap. 33. The 
instance of water here introduced may appear not to be the happiest that 
might have been chosen ; but Augustine was led to adopt it, because Mani- 
chaeus, in his Fundament^ the epistle against which Augustine is here writing, 
makes turbid and muddy water one of the worlds in his terra tenebrarum. 



278 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE . ' 

length than I can here quote, to establish and illustrate 
his position, that every nature is good, that in every thing 
that, and that alone, which is good in it, constitutes the 
nature, and that which is evil in it is contrary to its na- 
ture. 

In another treatise, he shows that all good may be re- 
ferred to mode, species, and order ; which three things are 
from God. After illustrating this at some length, he says, 
— " Where these three are great, the good is great ; where 
they are small, the good is small ; where they are not, 
there is no good. And, again, where these three are 
great, the natures are great - 3 where these three are small, 
the natures are small ; where they are not, there is no 
nature. Every nature, therefore, is good." 1 

From the testimony of Augustine, then, we learn, that to 
maintain the existence of an evil nature, is to maintain the 
fundamental principle of Manichseism. To say that the 
nature was at first created good, but became evil by the 
fall, only makes the matter worse. And they who teach 
that our Lord took a fallen nature, must be labouring un- 
der some strange delusion, if they deny that they are teach- 
ing the very doctrine, upon which Manichseism is built, 
as clearly as ever Manicha^us taught it. 

The danger is not in the slightest degree avoided, by 
rejecting the expression fallen nature, and teaching that 
Christ took not a fallen nature, but nature in a fallen state. 

This is followed up by referring, for the same reason, to the wind, where he 
remarks, that though a hurricane he had, yet that is not essential to wind, 
which may blow a soft and gentle breeze. You may, therefore, have wind 
without that which is evil in it ; but take away that similitude of parts which 
makes the wind a body, and you have no nature at all. 

1 Haec tria ubi magna sunt, magna bona sunt ; ubi parva sunt, parva bona 
sunt ; ubi nulla sunt, nullum bonum est. Et rursus, ubi haec tria magna 
sunt, magnae natures sunt ; ubi parva sunt, parvae naturae sunt ; ubi nulla 
sunt, nulla natura est. Omnis ergo natura bona est. — Be Natura Boni, cap. 
3. The whole of this treatise, as well as the one last quoted, will richly repay 
a careful perusal. ' Augustine also explains his sentiments upon this subject 
very fully in his answers to Julian, who charged him with Manichaeism for 
maintaining the doctrine of original sin. 



OX THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 279 

The one expression is quite equivalent to the other, for 
unless nature could be fallen, it never could be in a fallen 
state. We might just as well say, that that which could 
never die, was nevertheless found in a dead state ; and 
that which could never live, was found in a living state ; 
and that which could never rise, was found in a risen state ; 
as say that that which could never fall, was found in a 
fallen state. If, then, nature was in a fallen state, nature 
fell ; and, consequently, Manichgeism is true, and Chris- 
tianity is to be abandoned. This consequence there is no 
possibility of evading : and were it not that the tenet has 
been maintained by those who profess to be intimately 
acquainted with the writings of Augustine, it might have 
been hoped, that in the face of a consequence so decisively 
ruinous, even the most zealous assertors that our Lord took 
a fallen sinful nature, would pause in their fatal career, 
and admit that they were labouring under a fearful mis- 
take when they maintained the existence of such a thing 
as a fallen nature, or a nature in a fallen state. 

If, then, a nature could be fallen, and if it be true that at 
the fall of man human nature fell, then it is clear that Adam 
could not be a man both before and after the change that 
took place in his nature, — that the fall could have produced 
no suffering, — and that Manichseus must be owned as that 
which he declares himself to be, an Apostle of the Lord 
Jesus Christ. Besides, even if it were admitted, in defiance 
of all these consequences, that & nature maybe fallen, I see 
not what advantage could be derived from the admission, 
to the cause of those who maintain that our Lord took 
fallen human nature, or human nature in a fallen state. 
For nature cannot exist excepting in a person. It floats 
not an invisible and infectious thing, like the malaria of a 
Campanian bog or a Bat avian fen, ready to seize upon all 
who may come within the sphere of its activity. If a fall- 
en nature exist at all, it can exist only as the nature of a 
fallen person. If, then, there was a fallen nature, or a 



280 ON THE PHRASE ' FALLEN NATURE.' 

nature in a fallen state existing in Christ, the conclusion is 
inevitable that there was a fallen person in him ; and, con- 
sequently, that either the humanity was a person, or the 
second person of the Holy Trinity was fallen. In every 
point of view, therefore, in which the question as to a fallen 
nature can be placed, it appears to me clear as the light of 
day, that he who persists in saying that our Lord took a 
fallen human nature, or human nature in a fallen state, 
has just to choose whether he will preach the impiety of a 
fallen God, or the heresy of a distinct human personality, 
in the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ 
Jesus. 

Few persons can estimate more lowly than I do the 
value of metaphysical discussions, in settling a theological 
question. When I first wrote upon this subject, therefore, 
I contented myself with merely stating the absurdity of 
saying that human nature, or any nature, ever fell, or sin- 
ned, or died. To a few who are capable of thinking, and 
who, therefore, needed only to have their attention called 
to the fact, I have reason to believe, that the simple state- 
ment of the matter was perfectly sufficient. To those 
who still hesitate the above reasoning may probably 
prove satisfactory : and perhaps there may be some with 
whom the authority of Augustine will have more weight 
than any arguments. They who are willing to be guided 
by human authority cannot well choose a safer guide. Such 
speculations I do not willingly introduce. The garden of 
the Lord is before us, rich in all the fruits that can 
strengthen the soul, and gladden the heart of man ; and I 
know not why we should leave that garden, and go to 
gather figs from the thistles, and grapes from the thorns 
of metaphysical disquisition. But if we must leave this 
region of light, to grope after the few scattered rays that 
may happen to be met with amidst the gloom of meta- 
physics ; if we must be sent inter silvas Academi quarere 
verum ; it is surely no unreasonable demand to insist, that 



ON THE PHRASE 1 FALLEN NATURE.' 281 

metaphysics shall keep some terms with common sense, — 
shall not at every step outrage our simplest perceptions, 
and trample on our best established principles, and com- 
pel us, in defiance of all Scripture, and all reason, and all 
authority, to believe that the very corner-stone of Mani- 
chaeism is a profound and fundamental Gospel truth. 



CHAPTER VHL 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



The following Sermon, with which I conclude this part of 
my work, takes up one of the most important and interest- 
ing points of discussion that arise out of the doctrine of the 
Incarnation. But in order to render the bearing of the Ser- 
mon, and the importance of the doctrine which it contains, 
more distinctly seen, it will be proper first to notice a line 
of argument which has often been pursued. That line of 
argument owes its origin, I believe, to Lactantius, at least 
he is the earliest writer in whom I recollect to have met 
it ; and has often been urged by Socinians, and is much 
relied upon by the supporters of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
humanity. The nature of the argument will be suffi- 
ciently understood by the following extract from Lactan- 
tius. In stating the necessity of the Incarnation, he 
teaches that it was necessary that Christ should be man, 
that he might not only give laws, but by his own obedi- 
ence might exemplify them. In the course of illustrating 
this view, which he does at considerable length, he says, — 
4 Therefore that he — the teacher of laws namely — may be 
perfect, there must be nothing that the disciple may be 
able to object to him : so that, if the disciple should say, 
— You command impossible things ; he may reply, — See, 
I do them myself. But I am clothed with flesh, whose 
property it is to sin. And I have the same flesh, yet sin 
rules not in me. It is difficult for me to despise worldly 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



283 



goods, because without them one cannot live in this body. 
See, I have also a body, and yet I fight against all cupi- 
dity. I cannot endure pain and death for righteousness' 
sake, for I am frail. See, pain and death have power 
upon me, and I conquer those very things which you 
fear, that I may make you a conqueror over pain and 
death. I go first through those things which you pre- 
tend cannot be endured. If you cannot follow me com- 
manding you, follow me going before you. In this man- 
ner every excuse is taken away.' 1 By this means, no 
doubt, all excuse is taken away ; but then it is very clear, 
that at the same time all pretence to divinity in Christ is 
also taken away; and his sinfulness is effectually esta- 
blished. For if he be a divine person, then this places 
him at an immeasurable distance from his disciple. And 
if the disciple can say, u I see another law in my mem- 
bers, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing 
me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my mem- 
bers," then the principle upon which Lactantius reasons 
is completely subverted, unless the Saviour can say the 
same. And if he can say, I have to contend with all the. 
spiritual deadness, and all the moral weakness, resulting 
not only from original sin, but from long and deeply rooted 
habits of actual guilt ; what becomes of this principle un- 
less the Saviour can say the same ? And thus not only is 
the divinity of Christ denied, but he is made a sinner equal 
at least to the very chief of sinners. 
It is true that Lactantius had no design whatever to 

1 Ergo ut perfectus esse possit, nihil ei debet opponi ab eo qui docendus 
est; ut si forte dixerit, impossibilia prcecipis; respondeat, ecce ipse facio. 
At ego came indutus sum, cujus est peccare proprium. Et ego eandem car- 
nem gero ; et tamen peccatum in me non dominatur. Mini opes contemnere 
difficile est, quia vivi aliter non potest in hoc corpore. Ecce et mini corpus 
est, et tamen pugno contra omnem cupiditatem. Non possum pro justitia 
nec dolorem ferre nec mortem, quia fragilis sum. Ecce et in me dolor, ac 
mors babet potestatem ; et ea ipsa, quae times, vinco ; ut victorem te faciam 
doloris ac mortis. Prior vado per ea, quse sustineri non posse praetendis ; si 
prsecipientem sequi non potes, sequere antecedentem. Sublata est boc modo 
omnis excusatio. — Institiitiones y Lib. iv. cap. 24. 



284 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



establish these consequences, for he neither doubted the 
divinity of Christ, nor believed in the sinfulness of his 
flesh, as we shall see in the proper place. But if his prin- 
ciple be correct, these consequences inevitably follow. 
The reader, therefore, will not wonder that Lactantius 
should be a favourite with Socinian writers. Doctor 
Priestley says, 4 1 cannot help laying particular stress on 
the omission of it — the doctrine of atonement, namely — 
by Lactantius, who treats professedly of the system of 
Christianity as it was generally received in his days. Yet, 
in his Divine Institutions, there is so far from being any 
mention of the necessity of the death of Christ to atone 
for the sins of men, that he treats of the nature of sin, of 
the mercy of God, and of the efficacy of repentance, as if 
he had never heard of any such doctrine.' 1 But the doc- 
tor has neglected to mention some circumstances which 
must necessarily be taken into consideration, in order to 
enable us to determine what stress is to be laid upon either 
the omission, or the expression of any doctrine by Lac- 
tantius. Nor can I here enter into any minute state- 
ment of these circumstances ; but some of them must be 
mentioned. Lactantius was a layman, a professor of rhe- 
toric, and more anxious by far to emulate the polished ele- 
gance of Cicero, than the Christian knowledge and energy 
of Paul. And he had his reward. That his writings 
have still a place in our theological libraries, is a distinc- 
tion for which they are indebted, not to the theological 
information which they contain, but to the unrivalled 
beauty of their style. In the earlier Books of his Institu- 
tions, where he assails the follies of the heathens, and 
where he was master of his subject, he is indeed well 
worthy to be read. But when he comes to state the doc- 
trines of Christianity, we can only wonder that any man, 
who had ever read the Bible, however carelessly, could 
contrive to know so little about the matter. Jerome very 
justly remarked of him, that he was much better fitted to 

1 History of tiie Corruptions of Christianity, Vol. i. p. 209. 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



285 



overturn heathenism than to build up Christianity. His 
usual way of proving a doctrine is, by giving one quota- 
tion from Hermes Trismegistus, another from the Bible, 
and a third from the sybilline verses, in the inspiration of 
which he expressly avows his belief. 

It is perfectly true, that, in treating of the death of Christ, 
he never once mentions the pardon of our sins as one of 
the reasons of it : nor writes a single sentence, from which 
it can be inferred, that he had ever heard of such a writer 
as Paul having treated of the subject before him. But 
when Priestley stated this fact, it would have been but 
fair to state also the reasons which he does assign for our 
Lord's death. He makes every circumstance attending it 
typical. For example, the gall and vinegar signified the 
bitterness and sorrow to be endured by his followers ; and 
the crown of thorns meant that he would surround himself 
with a multitude of people taken from among the wicked ; 
for a multitude standing in a ring is called a crown — 
Corona enim dicitur circumstans in orbem populus ; and 
thorns represent the wicked from among whom he would 
collect this crown of people. But amidst all his suffer- 
ings his bones were not broken, but his body was kept 
entire, lest it should be unfit for rising again, — inhabile ad 
resurgendum ! Now, if such stress is laid upon his author- 
ity, that his omission of a doctrine is a good reason for re- 
jecting that doctrine, I conceive that his express assertion 
of a doctrine is a still better reason for adopting it. As 
far then as his authority goes, if we reject the atonement 
because he makes no mention of it, we are bound, in con- 
sistency, to adopt that typical view of the sufferings of 
Christ, because he expressly asserts it. For it is surely 
absurd to say that we will treat such notions with utter 
contempt, even though supported by all the weight which 
the authority of Lactantius can give ; while yet we feel 
such high respect for that authority, that we will deny the 
doctrine of atonement merely because he says nothing 
about it. 



286 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



That lie said nothing about that doctrine, because he 
knew nothing about it, is, I think, abundantly evident ; 
because, in a different part of his work, he teaches that the 
remission of our sins may be purchased by alms-giving ; 
— ii ay, and teaches, too, that we may carry our alms deeds 
to an extent beyond what is necessary for that purpose : 
for he advises, that when a man has purchased the for- 
giveness of all his sins, he should not then cease to give, 
but should still give for the praise and glory of virtue I 1 
Are they, who reject the atonement on the ground that 
Lactantius says nothing about it, prepared to show their 
respect for his authority by adopting this doctrine ? If not, 
they should say nothing about the authority of that writer, 
since it plainly appears that they would just as stedfastly 
have renounced the atonement as they do, even though Lac- 
tantius had taught it as clearly as the Bible does. 

The line of argument which Lactantius incautiously 
adopted, without seeing its consequences, goes also very 
directly, as I have observed above, to establish the doc- 
trine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, — nay, to make him 
guilty of both original and actual sin. For, if he were not 
guilty of both, then it is useless for us to go to the sinner 
and urge upon him the duty of obedience from the example 
of Christ ; because he will at once reply, that if Christ 
was not involved in all the guilt of original and actual sin, 
then his obedience was yielded under circumstances which 
unfitted it for affording any argument, that obedience either 
would be required, or could be yielded by those who are 
loaded with all the weight of both original and actual sin. 
And Lactantius, and all who adopt his principles, must 
admit these fearful consequences, or they must renounce 
the principle itself. For if they should say that he had 
no sin, either original or actual, then the sinner would at 
once say, — 4 If the doctrine which you teach be true, I can 

1 Ut quod ante in medelam vulneram fecerat, post modum faciat in laudem 
gloriamque virtutis. — Lib. vi. cap. 13. 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



287 



derive no hope from Christ. For you tell me that if he 
differed from me by however little, he can be no Saviour 
of mine ; and you tell me at the same time that he did 
differ from me most widely, by wanting the most pro- 
minent characteristics of my present state, original and 
actual sin. Where is then my hope ? He could conquer 
the devil, he could overcome the world, and he could con- 
strain, and only by a perpetual and fearful struggle con- 
strain to unwilling obedience, flesh that was never conta- 
minated by sin, either original or actual. But does this 
afford me any hope that he can form my flesh to obedience 
also, which is deeply tainted with both ? He could keep 
sin out of sinless flesh ; but how do I know that he can 
drive it out of flesh of which it has full possession ? He 
could keep pure humanity from falling into sin ; but can 
he lift fallen humanity out of the guilt and impurity which 
by many sins it hath contracted ? If with all the fulness 
of the Holy Ghost, he 4 all but yielded,' how can I possi- 
bly hope that a smaller measure of the Holy Ghost is ca- 
pable of doing for me, what all his fulness had just enough 
to do to accomplish for him, under much more favourable 
circumstances ?' In short, if the principle of Lactantius be 
true, then we can derive no encouragement from the ex- 
ample of Christ, and no hope that he can make us con- 
querors over all our foes, unless he engaged them under 
all our disadvantages, and had the same original depravity, 
the same weight of actual guilt, and the same force of habi- 
tual transgression to meet with which we have to contend. 
This result, I think, is a very satisfactory proof of the fa- 
tal nature of the principle from which it so directly springs. 
The following Sermon contains a sound, and clear, and able 
view of the certainty with which we may rely upon the 
sympathy of Christ in all our trials and temptations, and 
of the confidence with which we may depend upon his 
power to deliver us, without any necessity for supposing 
him to be fallen and sinful, or for resorting to a principle 



288 



THE SYMPATHY OF CHRIST. 



so fatal as that originating with Lactantius, and unhappily 
so often adopted since. 

The Sermon is the production of a friend, whose name 
I regret that I am not permitted to give with it. It was 
addressed to his own parishioners in the ordinary course 
of his ministrations, without the remotest idea that it would 
ever receive a wider publicity than he gave it from the 
pulpit. It was by mere accident that I heard of his hav- 
ing preached upon the text ; and having an opportunity 
of seeing him soon after, I asked him for the sermon. He 
very readily replied, that if I could make any use of it, I 
was perfectly welcome to it. He had no idea that I would 
print it ; nor had I, at the time, any such design. But 
on reading it, I concluded at once that the very best use 
I could make of it was to give it entire. To this he has 
not objected, and I have therefore sent it to the press as I 
received it, without the alteration of a single word. I 
make this statement as apiece of justice to the author, and 
by no means as an apology for the sermon, for which I 
think that the reader will agree with me that it has no occa- 
sion. At least, had I conceived that it, in the slightest 
degree, needed an apology, it should not have been here. 
The ministers of our Church have of late been represented 
as all that is careless, and all that is ignorant. When the 
reader has perused this discourse, and recollects that it 
was never intended for the press, nor is sent there as being 
at all superior to any other of the discourses which its au- 
thor is weekly in the habit of addressing to his people ; 
and is compared with the more laboured, and more care- 
fully prepared, productions of some of those who are so 
loud in their censure of the Scottish Clergy, he will pro- 
bably think that these immoderate censures might very 
well have been spared — and that of the people who are 
constantly accustomed to such discourses, there is no rea- 
son to complain that the word of life is not rightly divided 
to them. 



A SERMON. 



HEBREWS IV. 15, 

FOR WE HAVE NOT AN HIGH PRIEST WHICH CANNOT BE 
TOUCHED WITH THE FEELING- OF OUR INFIRMITY ; BUT 
WAS IN ALL POINTS TEMPTED LIKE AS WE ARE, YET 
WITHOUT SIN. 

In these words, the first thing that strikes us is the as- 
sertion of a fact respecting our Lord Jesus Christ, in his 
character of our high priest — that he is " touched with 
the feeling of our mfinnity." Next, this fact is traced to 
its origin — the natural cause of its existence is assigned — 
we are informed how it came to pass that he is so touched 
— he u was in all points tempted like as we are." Being, 
though Divine, yet possessed of a real and true humanity, 
it is easy for men, by consulting their familiar experience, 
to perceive clearly the connection betwixt this cause and 
this consequence in his gracious soul. He is the grand 
exemplification — the noblest practical exhibition — of that 
standing maxim, that by being ourselves intimate with grief 
we learn to succour the wretched; — as, if he had never tasted 
pain, we could hardly have been prevented from applying 
to him more than to any other, the reverse of that maxim, 
which is of equal authority, — that those can never enter 
fully into our sorrow, who have felt nothing like it them- 
selves. This reference of the inspired writer to a well-known 

N 



290 



A SERMON 



law of our nature gives additional clearness and force to that 
delightful truth which is besides so plainly expressed in the 
former clause of the text, viz. : that the compassion of 
Christ for our afflictions is not the result of a merely ra- 
tional conjecture or estimate of their severity, founded on 
observation of their natural symptoms or effects, as one 
who has never known ill health may judge of the violence 
of another man's fever : — but that it proceeds from that 
quick, tender, penetrating, thorough sense of our trials, 
which perfect manhood could not fail to acquire, by experi- 
encing personally, as tests of his own obedience, the keen- 
ness of bodily pain, and the anguish of a wounded spirit. 
The extent also to which the sympathy of our Saviour 
spreads, is illustrated by this mention of its origin. He 
was tempted, " in all points," like as we are ; therefore, 
u in all points," we may surely reckon upon finding in him 
this fellow-feeling. It was not a few kinds only of our 
earthly struggles, apart from others, that he admitted into 
his heart, so that he could appreciate them by feeling as 
well as judgment, and not the rest : but he stood success- 
ively in all the main flood-gates of tribulation, and there 
made trial of the worst that mortal man can endure, 
whether from the hostility of a disordered world, or from 
the rage of fallen angels, or from the wrath of offended 
Heaven. Yet it was with a certain modification that he 
was so tempted : — it was u without sin." This is the only ' 
difference which the inspired writer marks — the only re- 
servation which he is careful to make. But then it is a 
reservation of so much consequence, that in the eye of our 
guilty apprehension, it seems at first sight to take back 
nearly all that had been previously granted ; and to make 
so essential a dissimilarity betwixt the temptations of the 
high priest and those of his people, that the matter of 
chief importance in the case, — the sympathy on his part 
— is almost wholly deprived of its foundation. To beings 
who see that very many of their temptations are the ef- 
fects of previous sin, failing which, they had never exist- 



OX HEBREWS IV. 15. 



291 



ed ; and against whom temptation is so often prevalent, 
that the very name no longer presents so readily the idea of 
simple trial, as of trial inducing crime, this is a very natural 
prejudice ; yet to beings entirely dependent, and that 
through faith, upon the tender mercies of Christ Jesus, it 
is a prejudice so fatal, that a little time can scarcely be 
better employed than in endeavouring to see upon what 
weak foundations it rests, or rather how utterly it is un- 
founded. May the Spirit of wisdom and grace vouchsafe, 
in this exercise, not only to disentangle our minds from 
all misunderstandings, but so to commend his truth to our 
assured convictions, as to fill our hearts with sacred en- 
couragement and comfort ! 

In illustrating the text by the current usage and clear 
authority of other Scriptures, if we can make it appear, 

That temptation and sm, however closely related, are 
yet things entirely and essentially distinct, so that there 
may be real and true temptation, where there is no sin 
whatever ; — this in the first place. 

And if we can farther show, that those temptations 
which are the most sifting, severe, and terrible in their na- 
ture, may be precisely those which are the farthest re- 
moved from being sinful ; — this in the second place. 

Then, thirdly, we shall the more readily see how the 
temptations of Christ, notwithstanding their sinlessness, 
were such as give him a most thorough experience and 
feeling of human infirmity in the hour of trial : — 

And, lastly, how this feeling on the part of Christ 
amounts to a true and perfect sympathy with the infirmi- 
ties of all who receive Him as their High Priest, under 
every form and aspect of their temptations. 

I. Let us advert, then, in the first place, to the truth, 
That both in the nature of the things themselves, and in 
the language of the inspired writers, temptation and sin are 
entirely distinct and separate matters. We do not say 
that temptation and sin are not intimately connected: — 
we only say that they are not identified, Our assertion is 



292 



A SERMON 



not that they have nothing to do with each other ; but 
just that they are not one and the same thing. That 
temptation is often mingled with sin, as wine is often 
mingled with water, must be admitted : but as wine and 
water are very different substances, and, though capable 
of mixture, yet can and do exist in a separate state, so it 
is also with sin and temptation. To say that there is ever 
sin without temptation leading to it, might indeed be false; 
and if true, would have no connection whatever with our 
subject : but there may be temptation that neither partakes of 
sin nor produces it : — and that is precisely the assertion of 
the text concerning the temptation of our Lord. If we at- 
tentively look at the plainest facts, this truth must speedily 
be apparent. How many are successfully tempted by 
hunger, or the dread of it, to seek subsistence by unright- 
eous practices ? Yet surely to be hungry, and to dread the 
pangs of hunger, are but mere infirmities, not sins. How 
many crimes are committed under the influence of anger ! 
Yet there is such a thing as blameless anger, if the dic- 
tates of God's Spirit are of any authority ; for were anger 
always criminal, the apostolic precept, " Be angry and 
sin not," would just be an injunction upon us to sin with- 
out sinning. The truth is, that all the stronger appetites 
and affections which God has implanted in our nature, 
and which would have been necessary to its being and 
well-being, though we had never fallen — affections most 
fit, most becoming; most beneficial, most indispensable — ■ 
are every one of them converted into most dangerous 
temptations, when they happen at any time to be power- 
fully excited, under circumstances that preclude them from 
being lawfully indulged. There may, no doubt, be ex- 
citement without just cause, — or excitement that goes be- 
yond due bounds, — and then, certainly, it is sinful excite- 
ment ; — and if it lead to criminal conduct, here, without 
question, is a sinful temptation producing sinful deeds. 
But, on the other hand, the excitement may be quite un- 
avoidable as to its occasion, and quite reasonable as to 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



293 



its degree ; whilst it may, notwithstanding, continue to 
be a temptation of the most powerful kind. If, for in- 
stance, a man is long shut out from every kind of nourish- 
ment, he cannot but hunger and thirst. If the privation 
is continued, no feeling can be more reasonable than the 
fear of death, as none can be more violent. In these cir- 
cumstances, should he suddenly find an opportunity of 
supplying his urgent want, but only through some act of 
decided wickedness, who can fail to see that he would be 
fiercely tempted to seek the relief by committing the sin ? 
Should he in fact commit it, he is guilty ; but his guilt lies 
not in the temptation itself surely, but in the success of 
the temptation. It lies not in having felt the raging ap- 
petite, but in having yielded to it ; — not in having feared 
the death of the body, but in having forgotten the fear of 
Him who, after the body is dead, can cast the soul into 
hell. That no part of the sin belonged to the mere temp- 
tation will, however, be still more evident, if, instead of 
yielding to it, the sufferer has successfully resisted, and 
died, rather than make shipwreck of faith and a good con- 
science. In this case, let the bodily anguish have been as 
great, the horror of death as violent, the impulses that 
strove to conquer his better will as frequent and as furi- 
ous as before ; yet, seeing his hatred of sin, and trust in 
God, and hope of eternal life, were stronger still, and were 
prevalent at last against all inducements to evil ; — it is 
clear that the temptation, instead of being a sinful thing, 
was just one of those " fiery trials" of a Christian's faith, 
which the Scripture pronounces to be " more precious than 
gold that perisheth, though it be tried in the fire." 

These results of common reason and observation folly 
agree with the established usage of Scripture language ; 
which speaks of temptation as sometimes involving sin, 
and as being at other times entirely free from it. In proof 
of this, it will be sufficient to compare one or two expres- 
sions of other inspired writers with the assertion of St 
James in chap. i. 13, that " God cannot be tempted with 



A SERMON 



evil, neither tempteth he any man." Here, in the first 
place, it is plainly not the Apostle's intention to affirm that 
God cannot in any sense be tempted : for God himself in 
Psalm xcv. thus expressly warns the people of Israel — 
" Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, and as in 
the day of temptation in the wilderness : when your fathers 
tempted me, proved me, and saw my work." Neither can 
it be his intention to affirm that God cannot be tempted 
by the evil or sin that is in his creatures ; for it was precise- 
ly the hardened unbelief and stiff-necked rebellion of the 
Israelites that constituted the u temptation" in question, 
and brought down upon themselves the wrathful oath and 
exterminating judgments by which their carcasses fell in 
the wilderness. What remains, then, as the meaning of 
this declaration ? Just that God cannot be tempted by any 
thing sinful or unholy in Himself. No unrighteous thought 
or feeling can have a moment's place in his most pure and 
sacred essence. All such evil is infinitely abhorrent to his 
nature; and, therefore, u temptation," as affecting God, — 
as operating in the divine mind, — is a thing perfectly and 
absolutely " without sin." 

Then, further, the Apostle intimates, that " Neither 
tempteth he any man." But this expression, any more 
than the former, is not to be understood with absolute 
strictness, as if God never subjected any of the human race 
to temptation ; for the contrary is distinctly stated, where, 
in Genesis xxii., we read that " God did tempt Abraham." 
And how is the apparent contradiction between these two 
assertions to be reconciled ? Simply by taking notice that 
the limitation in the former clause of St James 7 statement 
belongs equally to the latter ; and that, read at large, the 
whole would run thus,— u God is not tempted with evil, 
neither tempteth he any man with evil." — " But," adds 
the Apostle instantly, " every man is tempted" — that is, 
sinfully tempted — u when he is drawn away of his own 
lust and enticed." Sinful temptation, therefore, accord- 
ing to this Scripture, a man may certainly feel ; but then 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



295 



it is carefully marked that the sin is wholly from himself, 
and remains chargeable upon himself alone. So then, when 
God tempted Abraham, He could have mingled no sin with 
the temptation. As coming from God, it was a temptation ; 
but as coming from God, it must have been " without sin." 
He infused no evil feelings ; He provoked no corrupt incli- 
nations ; yet He did, (unless the Scripture can be broken,) 
He did really tempt Abraham. Nor is there any deep or 
unintelligible mystery at all in this sinless temptation. 
When requiring the patriarch to sacrifice his son, God tried 
him by the holy affection which a man like him must have 
cherished for the child of his faith and of his prayers ; and 
still more, perhaps, by that fervent and sublime concern 
with which the father of the faithful must have viewed the 
multitude of his spiritual offspring, when the hope seemed 
upon the point of vanishing for ever with the expiring 
breath of the heir of promise. These were the pious, and 
pure, and noble sentiments, in the strange and painful ef- 
fort of repressing which, as soon as they came in opposi- 
tion to a divine command, the whole temptation consisted. 
The more successfully that these had been cultivated, and 
the longer that they had been indulged, the more powerful 
inducements would they naturally prove to misunderstand, 
or evade, or disobey the injunction with which it seemed 
impossible to reconcile them. Yet so far from being sins, 
— so far from being even weaknesses, they were virtues of 
the highest kind : and though they might, if not duly 
guarded, have led to the most fatal consequences, yet as 
if intentionally to exclude all idea of sinfulness from our 
views of this temptation — no rebellious murmur — no shrink- 
ing reluctance — not the slightest movement of any unholy 
feeling is ever imputed in the Scriptures to the patriarch's 
conduct under the trial ; but, on the contrary, it is every 
where made the theme of unqualified applause, and cele- 
brated as the very triumph of a pure and unfaltering obe- 
dience. 

II. This much may suffice to establish our first propo- 



2% 



A SERMON 



sition, namely, that, in the nature of things, and also in 
accordance with the language of sacred writ, temptation 
may be either sinful, or " without sin." As a trial of what 
is in man, it is sometimes the one and sometimes the other. 
As a test of the Divine character, it is always holy— " God 
cannot be tempted of evil." The second assertion, name- 
ly, that those temptations, which are the most sifting and 
terrible, may, notwithstanding, be the farthest removed 
from sin, will admit of confirmation in fewer words. No- 
thing, indeed, can be more true, than that our evil dispo- 
sitions and passions, when fostered and provoked by in- 
dulgence, occasion to those who are not utterly abandoned 
many a painful trial, and many a bitter conflict, which 
might otherwise be avoided. And yet, in a world where 
sin has introduced confusion, and demands that God, in 
his sovereign mercy and righteousness, should often visit 
his own children with sharp correction, it frequently be- 
comes needful, as in the case of Abraham, to restrain the 
holiest affections ; and, as in innumerable other cases, to 
mortify desires the most natural and most necessary, with 
as much rigour as the most impure and profligate : — and, 
wherever there is a call for this, the effort of self-govern- 
ment is, in fact, a great deal more difficult, and a great deal 
more distressing, than when the check is to be laid only 
upon the excess and the exorbitance of appetite. Here, 
again, let the simplest examples teach us. Are the crav- 
ings of the intemperate palate for wine as hard to be en- 
dured, as the natural thirst of him who pants for the wa- 
ters of the gushing fountain, and cannot find them ? Ask 
the parched Ishmaelite in the desert ;■ — and yet the same 
authority, in obedience to which the martyrs have so often 
given their bodies to be burned, might require them to 
perish of thirst, a fate which many probably endured, ra- 
ther than deny their Lord, or worship an idol. Is the 
pampered appetite of the epicure as importunate in its de- 
mands, as the unavoidable and ravenous hunger of a fa- 
mishing man ? Ask the wretched mothers, who, in the 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



297 



siege of Samaria, bargained to slay in succession their own 
children, that they might subsist a few days longer on 
their flesh : — yet it is obvious that they should have deter- 
mined to die of famine rather than commit those horrid 
and unnatural murders. Was the lust of dominion in the 
breast of Absalom, which excited him, before the time, to 
aspire after his father's throne, a principle of greater energy 
than that ardour of royal and devout ambition which 
prompted David, when he had subdued the enemies of 
God's people, and firmly established their strength and 
prosperity, to crown a work of such extraordinary renown, 
by building a Temple — the only one in all the earth — where 
the Lord Jehovah should set his name and his worship ? 
Surely it required a greater effort of self-denial in this case 
to renounce the holy, than it would have done to renounce 
the guilty ambition. And yet, after his noble enterprise 
had seemed to receive the sanction both of God and men, 
it became the duty of David to resign it into the hands of 
another. But why are these things adduced? To show 
how the temptations of our Lord, without being sinful in 
the least degree, might, notwithstanding, be what we know 
they were, more sharp and terrible than any other. What 
though he had no irregular or exaggerated passions to re- 
strain? He had holy, just, pure, heavenly affections, 
strong in proportion to the greatness of his soul, and warm 
in proportion to the brightness and dignity of their objects ; 
which he was called upon, by the nature of his undertaking, 
not only to control, but for a season to thwart so painfully, 
and to turn aside so violently from their natural courses, 
that he must have needed to exercise a persevering strength 
of self-denial altogether matchless ; and must have had in 
his heart experience far beyond what mere mortality could 
have endured, of the profoundest sorrow, the keenest an- 
guish, and the harshest mortification. What feelings but 
such as these could he have experienced in those hours of 
temptation, when, with a spirit feelingly alive to all the re- 
finements of celestial purity and love itself, he had to bear 

n2 



298 



A SERMON 



the loathsome suggestions, and encounter the detestable 
impulses of diabolical wickedness and pollution ? — or still 
more, when with a heart that was completely absorbed in 
the love of God, and that found its highest delight in the 
sense of his fellowship and favour, it behoved him, by his 
own consent, not only to feel himself forsaken of God, 
alone and desolate ; but also to endure in his spirit the 
whole expression and effect of God's infinite wrath, when 
roused to execute the utmost vengeance of sovereign jus- 
tice upon the sins for which, though he did not commit 
them, it was his lot to suffer. No trial, it is evident, could 
be either more holy or more terrible than this. Nay, in 
the very perfection of its holiness its terror was consum- 
mated. 

III. But now we come to the third inquiry, Whether 
the temptation of Christ, being without sin, could give him 
a thorough experience and feeling of human infirmity in 
the hour of trial. To judge of this we must attend to the 
manner in which that sense of weakness is produced in 
ourselves, to which our Lord's sympathy has reference. 
Some moral conflict is necessary for the production of it : 
for whatever may be our real infirmity, it is only in some 
struggle that we have the 4 4 feeling of infirmity." Then only 
are we thoroughly conscious of weakness, when putting 
forth our whole strength we feel it insufficient, or but little 
more than sufficient to meet the exigency — and are, conse- 
quently, open to the impressions of danger and the assaults 
of fear. Such alarming sensations may alike be excited, 
whether we fail or whether we are victorious in the con- 
flict. He that has been overcome must, indeed, have felt 
his weakness ; and yet experience will testify, that he may 
have a much less clear and affecting sense of it, than the 
man whom God's especial grace and providence have en- 
abled to stand in the evil day ; and who afterwards from 
a place of safety looks back with wonder and awe upon his 
painful wrestlings, his perilous exposures, and his critical 
escapes. And why then may not our High Priest, though 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



299 



unconquered, have acquired the like sensibility in his 
temptation ? He had no sin, it is true ; but did he not feel 
weakness ? Did he not see danger ? Was not his heart 
afraid ? When tempted, had he not experience of a con- 
flict which brought his strength and holiness to as unspar- 
ing a trial as any that befalls his people can bring theirs ? 
What less can be intimated to us by such complaints and 
supplications as these ? "lam poured out like water ; all 
my bones are out of joint. My heart is like wax ; it is 
melted in the midst of my bowels : My strength is dried 
up like a potsherd. Be not thou far from me, O Lord ! 
O my strength, make haste to help me ! Deliver my soul 
from the sword ; my darling from the power of the dog. 
Save me from the lion's mouth. Thou hast heard me from 
the horns of the unicorns ! " 

Our understanding and belief of this most important 
truth receives some disturbance from certain ill-defined 
notions of the share which our Lord's Godhead must have 
taken in supernaturally sustaining his human powers while 
under temptation. " The Word was God," we say with 
the evangelist ; " how then," we add, " could he ever be in 
straits ? " The question would be quite in point, did it be- 
long to the perfection of his fitness for the mediatorial 
office, or did it even consist with that fitness, that his hu- 
manity should be placed, as without doubt it could easily 
have been, beyond all reach of sharp and distressing temp- 
tation. But the case was far otherwise. " For in that he 
was tempted," says the apostle, "he is able to succour them, 
that are tempted :" — words which distinctly teach that, in 
consequence of encountering painful conflict, such as calls 
for succour, he has acquired, for the relief of others in simi- 
lar circumstances, a qualification and a meetness which he 
could not otherwise have possessed ; but without which it 
is obvious that he could not be, what he now is, a perfect 
mediator. According to the Scriptures, then, it was the 
work of that Divinity which is mysteriously united with 
manhood in his person, — not to raise his suffering nature 



300 



A SERMON 



to such a height of glorious power as would render all trial 
slight and contemptible ; but to confer upon it such strength 
as would be infallibly sufficient — I say infallibly sufficient 
— but not more than sufficient, just to bear him through 
the fearful strife that awaited him, without his being broken 
or destroyed — so that he might thoroughly experience, in 
all the faculties of his soul and body, the innumerable sensa- 
tions of overpowering difficulty, and exhausting toil, and 
fainting weakness, and tormenting anguish, though by the 
Holy Ghost preserved from sin — and might touch the very 
brink of danger, though not be swept away by it, and feel 
all the horror of the precipice, but without falling over. 

This view of the case implies no disparagement to the 
greatness of our Lord's endowments considered as a man. 
On the contrary, the belief that his conflict was extreme, 
is held by none more consistently than by those who hold, 
at the same time, upon the fullest evidence, that even as a 
man, he was in every excellence, moral and intellectual, 
exalted unmeasurably, not only above all that are born of 
women, but even above all that is revealed of angelic sanc- 
tity or grandeur. The unrivalled greatness of his soul was 
no reason why he should pass through his trial without 
difficulty ; because the hostility and the hardship with 
which he had to contend was high and formidable in pro- 
portion. It was little that he was to meet the rage of 
confederated men, in all the plenitude of carnal power : — 
it was even little that he stood alone against the concen- 
trated might of the kingdom of darkness, when it was sti- 
mulated by circumstances to the utmost violence of despe- 
rate animosity, and came armed with the whole subtilty 
and vehemence of its spiritual temptations. He had to 
stand before the face of incensed Omnipotence — and to en- 
counter the strokes of that flaming sword of Jehovah, 
which was to fall in vengeance upon the sins of an apos- 
tate world. And who then shall undertake to tell, what a 
marvellous enlargement of forethought and knowledge in a 
Iiuman soul — what an inextricable grasp of assured faith 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



301 



upon the promises of God — what an iron strength of holy 
resolution — and what unextinguishable ardours of divine 
and saving love — must have been found in him, who could 
not only before-hand resolve to meet such terrors, but 
could actually sustain them, and not only sustain but con- 
quer them, when they came at once, with united force and 
fierceness, to wTestle with his spirit in the agonies of the 
cross ! 

Neither let it be imagined, on the other side, that the 
putting forth of such astonishing power by the Man Jesus, 
was at all inconsistent with the " feeling of infirmity." 
That feeling does not depend alone upon the measure of a 
champion's strength, whether small or great, nor alone 
upon the extent, whether small or great, of the force that 
is brought against him; but it depends still more upon 
the proportion — the adjustment — the almost equality, of 
the conflicting powers. When these differ only so much 
as is just sufficient to decide the combat, then he that con- 
quers, and does hardly more than conquer, will find in 
every nerve a thorough sense of his weakness. But this is 
not all. Though it may seem paradoxical, it is a truth, 
that he will have this feeling the more perfectly, the greater 
degrees and varieties of skill, and strength, and courage, 
and patience, he may have found himself compelled to 
exert in the struggle. If it be one in which multitudes, be- 
sides the leaders, are concerned, this truth will be the more 
evident. The more that we enlarge the field, and multi- 
ply the destructive engines, and exasperate the fury, and 
magnify the consequences of battle, the more we shall 
deepen the sense of infirmity in him, who with his eyes open 
to see the whole danger, does but just rescue his life and 
his cause from the tumult, though it be by victory. In the 
shock of contending armies, when some monarch experi- 
enced in war surveys at one view the nearly equal num- 
bers and advantages of the opposing lines — beholds all the 
strength and resources of his enemies for the work of de- 
struction—comprehends the perilous skill and boldness of 



302 



A SERMON 



their hostile movements — and perceives the deep and ruin- 
ous impressions made by them upon his own host ; when 
he foresees not only the immediate discomfiture, and rout, 
and carnage, which must ensue upon any failure in cour- 
age or conduct on his own part, but also the revolutions 
and miseries of nations that must be the consequence of 
his defeat : how much more strong and enlarged, at such 
a moment, must be his sense of insufficiency and inade- 
quacy, than can be that of any ignorant soldier in his 
army, — or shall I say, of the war-horse that carries him — 
which feels no burden but the weight of his master, and 
sees no danger but in the weapon that glitters at his 
breast ! And what has occasioned this intenser feeling of 
infirmity in the man and the sovereign ? Nothing but the 
greater extent and variety of his powers, when tasked to 
the uttermost, by an occasion of overwhelming interest and 
danger. Even so — since we have no better means of ar- 
riving at the conception of spiritual things than by liken - 
ing them to earthly objects infinitely mean and contemp- 
tible in comparison — even so we may understand how 
Christ, in possessing the most glorious powers, can yet 
have had a sense of weakness more deep and affecting by 
far, than we, in the narrowness of our faculties, can either 
experience or conceive ; a sense entirely suited to the un- 
paralleled greatness and terror of his conflict. He saw the 
conjuncture in all its awful magnitude! He viewed the 
result in all its tremendous importance ! He knew himself 
advancing to a post where his created and mortal nature, 
struck with the fiery darts of hell from beneath, and pierced 
from above by the arrows of the Almighty, must abide the 
shock and pressure of a falling world ; and where the failure 
but for one moment of his human endurance and resolution, 
must effect not only the universal and eternal triumph of 
wickedness and misery ; but what it is fearful to name, 
even while we know it can never happen — the defeat of 
his Father's counsel — the failure of his Father's truth — 
and the desecration of his Father's Godhead ! What won- 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



303 



der if we find it written that with a crisis like this before 
him, Jesus, in his " sore amazement," "sweated blood?'' 
or that when the actual extremity of his agony arrived, he 
poured out supplications with strong crying and tears unto 
him that was able to help him, and was heard indeed — 
but heard in that he feared ? 

IV. That Christ then, in his fearful though sinless con- 
flict, thus gained a thorough " feeling of infirmity," is cer- 
tain : — that this feeling lays an ample foundation for a 
true and perfect sympathy with his people in all their trials, 
remains to be briefly manifested. The text obviously in- 
tends to teach nothing more than that the sympathy of 
Christ is secure to those who believe in him — who acknow- 
ledge him as their High Priest — and who hold the same 
attitude in which he was found on earth, striving against 
sin. But this does not prejudice the truth taught in many 
other passages of Scripture, that he regards with compas- 
sion even the very chief of impenitent sinners. That he 
could derive from the experience of suffering on account 
of sin a vivid sense of the miseries which men bring down 
upon themselves by their transgressions, is self-evident ; 
and that he has no disposition to withhold from any who 
will accept of it, the benefit of this fellow-feeling, appears 
from his lamentation over the perishing rebels of Jeru- 
salem. In one point, however, it is quite true, that his 
participation of such men's sentiments does entirely fail. 
He can have no fellowship with their love of sin. Their 
impure, unrighteous, ungodly thoughts and feelings are 
utter strangers to his heart. There can be no concord of 
Christ with Belial. But is this any disadvantage to those 
unhappy persons in seeking salvation from him ? Quite 
the contrary. If he could possibly have a fellow-feeling 
with their sins, yet to what end would they wish for the 
existence of such a feeling ? Is it that he might the more 
indulge them in their wickedness ? That, instead of pro- 
moting their salvation, would be deepening their destruction. 
Is it that he might the better mortify and expel their sins ? 



304 



A SERMON 



But how could such an object be promoted by his con- 
curring in their sins, and entering into the spirit of them ? 
Surely his invincible abhorrence of every the least iniquity, 
and his infinite love of holiness and unspotted righteous- 
ness, are the very best pledges that sinners can desire of 
his most earnest readiness to aid them in renouncing all 
their transgressions. Thus even where his fellow-feeling 
comes short, and in reference to his very enemies, it is 
most for their real interest that it should do so. But if 
any such desire to be, in every point, and to the utmost 
extent, in harmony with the Son of God — their course is 
plain : — let them repent and believe the Gospel. 

To all who are already in the faith, the comfort of the 
text is offered without reserve. Engaged in the very 
same conflict by which Christ acquired his own sense of 
infirmity, they may rest assured that he can thoroughly 
appreciate theirs. With what kind or degree of affliction 
can they be tried of which he had not experience ? Toil, 
pain, poverty, disappointment, reproach, and calumny, the 
strife of tongues, the violence of hostile deeds, oppres- 
sion, mockery, murder, were his portion more than any 
man's. His tender feelings were wounded by the death of 
friends — by the anguish of a mother with the sword in her 
soul — by the treachery of false disciples — by the desertion, 
in his time of utmost need, of those who were sincerely 
devoted to him — by the eternal ruin of many whom " be- 
holding he loved," and amongst them his own unbelieving 
kindred. The mysterious powers of hell were let loose 
upon him. The hand of God touched him. These things, 
and more, came upon him to the uttermost. " He was 
tempted in all points even as we are." Then what could 
we wish for besides ? He is with us to relieve every one 
of our afflictions with the united skill of God and of a fel- 
low-man who has experienced the same ; so long as we 
do not willingly yield ourselves to the influences of sin, 
but are found like good soldiers enduring hardness for his 
sake. 



ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



305 



Say not that he could not, like you, have felt the bur- 
den of conscious guilt, having committed no personal sin. 
For, on the one hand, the sins of the world were laid to 
his charge, covering him, before God and angels and men, 
and in his own eyes also, with the garment of shame ; and, 
on the other hand, he hath taken all the guilt of his people 
wholly and for ever away, so that " there is now no con- 
demnation for them that are in Christ Jesus," who, in 
striving against temptation, are " walking not after the 
flesh, but after the Spirit." Then why should the sense of 
guilt be more disheartening to those from whom guilt has 
been removed, for the purposes of forgiveness, than to 
him upon whom guilt was laid, for the purposes of retribu- 
tion? 

Say not that, by having committed innumerable sins, 
your temptations from within and from without have 
greatly gathered strength, while your powers and means 
of resistance have been proportionably diminished — a 
source of discouragement which could not have affected 
Christ, as being free from the commission of sin. But 
wherein lies the real force of this objection ? Is it not in 
the great hardship and difficulty of the conflict to which 
the disadvantages in question expose you ? But is your 
struggle, at the worst, more severe or more desperate than 
was the Lord's ? If not, believe not that your feeling of in- 
firmity can be more perfect than his, or that there can be 
any pangs of fear or faintness in your heart which his ex- 
perience did not more than parallel. 

O ! but in him was Godhead — and he had the promise 
of the Father that he should not fail nor be discouraged 
until his mighty task were completed. And is not God- 
head also your refuge and your strength, a very present 
help in the time of trouble ? Does not the Holy Spirit 
dwell also in you ? and has not the Father said to you also, 
" Fear not, for I am with thee : Be not dismayed, for I 
am thy God ; I will strengthen thee, yea, I will help thee, 
yea, I will uphold thee with the right hand of my righteous- 



306 



A SERMON ON HEBREWS IV. 15. 



ness?" Nay, that very Saviour, whose almighty suffi- 
ciency our cowardly distrusts pervert, by such reasonings, 
into a source of misgiving, instead of a theme of triumph ; 
— can his destinies be separated for a moment from those 
of his people ? Is not he himself our head, and we the 
members of his body ? Are we not of his flesh and of his 
bones ? Is it not the power of his resurrection that keeps 
us from death ? Is not our life hid with Christ in God ? 
And is not the promise absolute, that when he who is our 
life shall appear, we also shall appear with him in glory ? 
Let us then be strong and of a good courage. Let us fight 
a good fight. Let us lay hold on eternal life. Insufficient 
of ourselves for these things, let us look the more to that 
sufficiency which is promised us of God ; and seeing we 
have not an High Priest which cannot be touched with the 
feeling of our infirmities, but was tempted in all points like 
as we are, yet without sin, let us therefore come boldly to 
the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find 
grace to help in time of need. Amen. 



THE 



DOCTRINE OF THE INCAMATIOK 



PAET II. 

JUDGMENT OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH CONCERN- 
ING THE HUMAN NATURE OF OUR LORD. 



CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL VIEWS. 

Having considered the doctrine of Scripture upon the In- 
carnation, I now proceed to inquire into the sentiments of 
those who, from the beginning, took the Scriptures for the 
rule of their faith. The value of the argument derived 
from this source will be very differently estimated by dif- 
ferent men. But I think it must be admitted that it is a 
strong argument in favour of our view of Scripture, if we 
can show that the immediate disciples of the Apostles 
took the same view.. And they who are inclined to at- 
tach to the opinion of the primitive church the smallest 
argumentative weight, must admit, that the determina- 
tion of what that opinion really was is an important 



308 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



point in ecclesiastical history ; which it is the more neces- 
sary to elucidate, that the fatal doctrinal error of the sin- 
fulness of our Lord's humanity has derived no small sup- 
port from a total misconception upon this subject. 

We naturally direct our attention, in the first instance, 
to the opinions entertained upon this point by the Jews, 
during the lifetime of our Lord. They certainly expected 
the Messiah to be a man, the " woman's seed." But they 
did not expect him to be a suffering man, though nothing 
concerning him be more clearly predicted by the prophets 
than the certainty of his sufferings. Their reluctance to 
believe this, together with the impossibility of evading the 
many and plain declarations of the prophets, gave rise to 
the hypothesis of two Messiahs, one of the tribe of Ephraim 
who should suffer, and another of the tribe of Judah who 
should reign. That he was to be truly a man, born in 
Bethlehem, they did not doubt. That he was to be a suf- 
fering man, they could not bring themselves to believe. 
The Apostles had their full share in all the national pre- 
judices of their countrymen ; and when our Lord foretold 
his own death, " Peter took him and began to rebuke him, 
saying, Far be it from thee, Lord, this shall not be unto 
thee." And when, on another occasion, signifying what 
death he should die, he said, " And I, if I be lifted up 
from the earth, will draw all men unto me," " The people 
answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ 
abideth for ever ; and how sayest thou, The Son of Man 
must be lifted up ? Who is this Son of Man ?" This Son 
of Man who was to suffer, was not that Son of Man whom 
they expected. The reader hardly needs to be told that 
I make these statements without attaching much weight 
to them. The notions of the Jews, with some truth com- 
bined such a mass of error, as to render them of little 
value ; but the statement is necessary in tracing the pro- 
gress and nature of the opinions upon this very important 
subject. 

It is of much greater importance to ascertain the senti- 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



309 



ments of Simon of Samaria upon this subject. The exact 
nature of his opinions and pretensions it is not very easy 
to determine, as the accounts given of them in the primi- 
tive writers are often vague, and sometimes contradictory. 
In the Acts of the Apostles we are told that he gave him- 
self out for " some great one," and that by the people he 
was said to be " the mighty power of God." That he 
gave himself out as one of the powers — Iwctpug — of God, 
is certain. That he assumed to be " the mighty power of 
God," — v) Ivvupig v) (Azya'hYi, — is not quite so clear. This 
point would be determined, if we could determine the 
place which he assigned to Christ among his iEons. He 
was the first who introduced the name of Christ into the 
Gnostic system ; and if he considered Christ to be the 
same as Noy£, the first emanation from Bythos and Sige, 
then he must be understood to have arrogated to himself 
all that the people ascribed to him. I am disposed, how- 
ever, to think that his pretensions, at least at first, were 
of a more moderate description. For the sacred writer 
stating his pretensions, only says that he gave himself out 
to be " some great one," that is, I suppose some one of 
the many powers of God which he acknowledged ; and I 
should rather think, that at that early period, when he 
seemed disposed to embrace Christianity, and to become 
a disciple of the Apostles, being actually baptized, he had 
not yet either settled his own system, or determined his 
own place in it. At a later period, when his boldness in- 
creased with the multitude of his dupes, he probably car- 
ried his pretensions to a higher pitch ; and this may ac- 
count for some portion of what appears contradictory in 
the accounts that we have of him. Besides, Irenaeus 
notes it as a peculiarity of Basilides, that he made Christ 
the same as Novg, whence it may probably be inferred 
that in Simon's system Christ occupied a lower place ; 
and, consequently, that he did not give himself out as 
"the mighty power of God," when he taught that the 
same iEon Christ, who had dwelt in Jesus, and had re- 



310 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



turned to the pleroma at his crucifixion, had again de- 
scended from the pleroma, and dwelt in him. 

But in whatever way this may be determined, it is cer- 
tain, that, in consequence of teaching that the iEon Christ 
dwelt in him, he arrogated to himself all that he under- 
stood the Apostles to ascribe to our Lord, or that he 
thought ought to be ascribed to him. As our Lord had 
wrought miracles, so Simon pretended to do the same, de- 
ceiving the people by his u lying wonders." Our Lord 
was born of a Virgin Mother ; and Simon gave out also 
that his mother Eachel conceived him when a virgin. 
This has justly been considered as a decisive proof that 
the miraculous conception formed a part of the preaching 
of the Apostles ; since no other reason can be assigned 
why Simon should arrogate such a privilege to himself. 
In opposition, therefore, to the absurd argument so often 
urged, that the Ebionites rejected those parts of the Gos- 
pels which teach the miraculous conception ; and, there- 
fore, those parts cannot be genuine, nor the doctrine true, 
—■though many of the Ebionites themselves believed it, — 
we may fairly place the clearly implied testimony of Simon 
to the fact, that the miraculous conception was taught by 
the Apostles. As to his body, Simon could not say of it, 
as he said of that of our Lord, in direct opposition to the 
Apostles, that it was a mere phantom ; yet he made as 
near an approach to this as possible, when he taught that 
his own body was impassible and immortal. Kay, we 
are informed that it was just upon this ground that he be- 
came head of the sect. He was originally one of the dis- 
ciples of Dositheus ; and it is stated in the Clementine 
Homilies, that his master being angry with him, struck 
him repeatedly with a rod ; and being confounded on ob- 
serving that the rod passed through the body of Simon as 
through air, he immediately resigned to him his place. 
Simon then assumed the title of 6 kalag (starts) «— the 
Stander — because he said his flesh was so compacted by 
his divinity as to be fitted to endure for ever. 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



311 



From Sinion, his view of our Lord's flesh naturally 
passed to the Gnostics, as he is commonly referred to by 
the primitive writers as the father of the Gnostic system. 
They did not mean by this to say that it originated with 
him ; but he acquired the eminence of being looked upon 
as its father, both because he made some material altera- 
tions upon it, especially by introducing Christ into it, as 
one of his iEons ; and because he appears to have been 
the first who travelled into different countries, for the pur- 
pose of propagating it. This he did some time before the 
Apostles went abroad to preach the Gospel. Theodoret 
tells us that when the Samaritans received the Gospel, and 
Simon found that he could no longer bewitch them by his 
sorceries, he travelled abroad to spread his errors where 
men were not yet fortified by the Gospel against them. 
Thus Gnosticism, in many instances, preceded the Gospel, 
and as it carried the name of Christ along with it, it 
proved one of the most powerful obstacles to the reception 
of the Gospel at first, and one of the most fatal means of 
corrupting it afterwards. 

The origin of Gnosticism is involved in an obscurity 
which it now seems hardly possible to penetrate. That it 
sprung from the Platonic philosophy, that it sprung from 
the Oriental philosophy, that it sprung from the Jewish 
Cabbala, are opinions each of which has been maintained 
with great learning and ability. Into this perplexing 
question I am not called to enter. 1 I may merely remark 
in passing, that it is very certain that it borrowed very 
freely from all these sources ; and being of a very pliant 
nature, easily accommodated itself to the prejudices of 
those by whom it was adopted ; so that in one man it 
would more nearly approximate one of these systems, and 
in another another of them. From Platonism it took the 
doctrine that matter is uncreated, and the source of all 
evil, from the Oriental philosophy it took the doctrine of 



1 See note K. Appendix, 



312 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



two principles, and from the Cabbala it borrowed its sys- 
tem of emanations ; and it appears highly probable that 
one or another of these doctrines would hold a more or less 
prominent place in the system, according to the early 
education and prejudices of the individual adopting the 
system. 

That doctrine of the Gnostics with which we are here 
particularly concerned, is their opinion that matter is un- 
created, and is the source of all evil. This doctrine, I have 
just remarked, they derived from Platonism, and, indeed, 
it was not peculiar to Plato, but was held by other Greek 
philosophers. Believing this, the Gnostics utterly abhor- 
red the doctrine of the resurrection, because they con- 
sidered salvation just to consist in a total separation from 
matter ; and they altogether denied the Incarnation, for 
that would have been to unite Christ with that which is 
essentially evil. They maintained that the body of Christ 
was a mere phantom, because, had he taken real flesh, it 
must, according to their principles, have of necessity been 
sinful flesh, as there was none else to take: and they 
could not conceive that he who was sent to save men from 
sin could have about him any thing sinful. On this point 
the Catholics fully agreed with them, that he could have 
nothing sinful about him. This was the common ground 
on which they met, — the point from which they diverged. 
He could not have real flesh, argued the Gnostics ; for if 
he had, it must have been sinful. The Catholics saw at 
once that this denial of the reality of his manhood was 
fatal to the Gospel, and utterly destroyed the work of re- 
demption. They therefore argued that he had real flesh, 
but that flesh is not necessarily evil. Upon this point, 
therefore, the sentiments of 'the opposing parties were 
brought to a simple, distinct, and intelligible issue. And 
the simplest, shortest, and most satisfactory method of 
bringing out these sentiments, will be to take one of the 
texts of Scripture which formed the ground of contention 
between them, and see how they treated it. We may for 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



313 



this purpose take 1 Cor. xv. 50, "Now this I say, breth- 
ren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God ; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." The 
Gnostics urged this text in support of their own pe- 
culiar tenet, as to the essential sinfulness of flesh, and in 
support of their doctrine, that the body of Christ was 
a mere phantom. iSTow, if the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
was a doctrine of the primitive Church, then the Ca- 
tholic writers would of course agree with the Gnostics 
in their interpretation of the text. We may expect to find 
them not only admitting the consequence which the Gnostics 
urged upon them from the text, that if Christ took flesh 
at all it must have been sinful flesh, but glorying in 
maintaining that he did, — giving the Gnostics no occa- 
sion to prove it, — leaving them no room to cast it upon 
them as a reproach, and that founded upon a doubtful 
inference ; but openly and strenuously declaring that, 
in very deed, Christ did take sinful flesh, and asserting 
the sinfulness of his flesh to be just the fundamental 
truth of Christianity. And they would then perhaps have 
proceeded to explain the paradox, how Christ took sinful 
flesh and yet was sinless. This explanation the Gnostic 
would not have received, but would probably have main* 
tained that to take sinful flesh and yet be sinless, is not 
merely a paradox, but a contradiction in terms. More- 
over, had the Catholic maintained, or for one moment ad- 
mitted, the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, he would have 
furnished the Gnostics with the means of arguing in the 
following resistless manner : — 1 You admit that the most 
sacred portion of matter in existence, — that portion which 
was, by a peculiar work of the Holy Ghost, formed into 
the body of God, was fallen, sinful, rebellious, wicked flesh. 
But if this was the character of that portion of matter, 
then upon what possible grounds can you doubt or deny 
that all matter is evil ? For surely if matter can possibly 
exist separate from that evil which we maintain to be in- 
herent in it, it must have so existed in the person of God, 

o 



314 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



But you admit that in his person it was all evil ; how then 
can it be doubted that it is all evil wherever it exists ?' 
To this reasoning, I cannot conceive what reply the Ca- 
tholic could possibly make. Maintaining the sinfulness of 
our Lord's flesh, he had fairly bound himself down to ad- 
mit the doctrine which the Gnostics had borrowed from 
Greek philosophy, namely, that all matter is inherently 
evil. 1 Thus the Catholic, in admitting the sinfulness of 
our Lord's flesh, gave himself up, bound hand and foot, into 
the power of the Gnostic ; and that all matter is evil he 
became compelled to admit as a portion of his creed. And 
so clearly and inevitably does the one of these doctrines 
lead to the other, that I find one of the most celebrated 
defenders of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh in the pre- 
sent day openly asserting that matter, all matter, is fallen! 
This makes it perfectly manifest, if it were not so already, 
how inevitably the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
flesh infers that of the evil of matter. That it became evil 
by falling is only adding to the irrationality of Gnosticism. 
I have had occasion, in the former part of this work, to 
show how completely the various anointings of Christ, 
arising out of the doctrine of the sinfulness of his flesh, 
establishes one of the fundamental tenets of Gnosticism. 
That from the same doctrine has sprung, even in the pre- 
sent day, the conclusion that all matter is fallen, is a fact 
which shows how very clearly and inevitably that doctrine 
establishes another fundamental tenet of that system. 
The Catholic, after admitting the sinfulness of our Lord's 
flesh, not only could have no ground upon which he could 
deny the evil of matter ; but he could have no reason what- 
ever for wishing to deny it. And adopting the two funda- 
mental tenets of Gnosticism, he had fairly abandoned the 
Gospel. 

But do we actually find the Catholic writers, when dis- 
cussing this text with the Gnostics, conceding, nay, main- 



1 See note L. Appendix. 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



315 



taining that Christ actually took sinful flesh ? Or do we 
find the Gnostics urging the triumphant and resistless ar- 
gument with which such a concession would have furnish- 
ed them ? I can only say, that if such a concession on the 
part of a Catholic, or such a plain conclusion from it on 
the part of the Gnostic, ever existed, a search carried over 
no narrow field, and conducted with no inattentive eye, 
has presented to me not the slightest traces of them. On 
the contrary, I have met with the most abundant and 
overwhelming evidence, that a very different view of the 
text was taken by the Catholics, — a view from which the 
Gnostic, whatever advantage he might take of it, could 
draw no conclusion in favour of his own dogma as to the 
inherent evil of matter. The first writer, as far as I re- 
collect, who undertakes to controvert the Gnostic interpre- 
tation of the text, is Irenaeus. His interpretation of the 
text is, that the sentence of exclusion from the kingdom of 
God is pronounced not literally against flesh and blood, 
but figuratively against the fruits of the flesh, which the 
same apostle elsewhere enumerates. And the very argu- 
ment by which he attempts to prove that flesh and blood 
cannot here be understood literally is, that the same apostle 
eveiywhere uses these words when speaking of Christ, 
which, in his opinion, he could not have done, had there 
been, any thing in flesh and blood unfit for the kingdom of 
God. I give a small portion of his argument, from which 
the reader will clearly see the principle upon which it is 
founded, and the design and tendency of the whole. ' But 
that the apostle spoke not against the substance of flesh 
and blood, that it should not inherit the kingdom of God. 
appears from this, that the same apostle everywhere uses 
the words flesh and blood with regard to the Lord Jesus 
Christ ; partly, indeed, that he may establish his manhood, 
(for he called himself the Son of Man,) and partly also 
that he might certify the salvation of our flesh. For if 
flesh had not been to be saved, the Word of God would not 



316 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



have been made flesh.' 1 Here the very fact that the ex- 
pressions flesh and blood are applied to Christ is urged as 
a proof that they can not be sinful, — can have nothing in 
them unfit for the kingdom of God. Did Irenaeus, then, in 
urging this argument, dream of admitting that even in 
Christ himself they were sinful and wicked ? Nothing can 
possibly be more evident than that he would have shunned, 
indeed, does shun, the impiety of such a supposition, as 
carefully as he shuns Gnosticism itself. We may wonder, 
indeed, that so judicious and discriminating a writer should 
have adopted a view of the text so palpably erroneous. 
But he was urged by the Gnostic interpretation of it, to 
get away from that interpretation as far as possible. We 
often deride the comments of the Fathers, without taking 
into consideration the situation in which they were placed, 
and the circumstances that led to these comments. There 
are many comments afloat in the present age, as erroneous 
and as ridiculous as any that will be found in the Fathers ; 
and which not only pass without censure, but meet with 
high applause. 

Erroneous as is the view of this text, into which a dread 
of Gnosticism led Irenaeus, the same cause induced many 
others to adopt the same view. He is followed in his in- 
terpretation by Tertullian, by Hilary of Rome, by Epi- 
phanius, by Augustine, and others. Methodius attempts 
to escape from the difficulty of the text by a somewhat 
different interpretation, which he gives in his Treatise on 
the Resurrection. Not having his work by me, I cannot 
give his interpretation in his own words, but it is in sub- 
stance as follows :— The kingdom of God is a phrase equi- 
valent to eternal life. But eternal life is, in its own na- 

1 Quoniam autem non adversus ipsam substantiam carnis et sanguinis 
dixit Apostolus, non possidere earn Regnum Dei, ubique idem Apostolus in 
Domino Jesu Christo usus est carnis et sanguinis nomine; aliquid quidem 7 
uti hominem ejus statueret ; (etenim ipse semetipsum filium dicebat hominis,) 
aliquid autem, uti salutem carnis nostrse confirmaret. Si enim non haberet 
caro salvari, nequaquam Verbum Dei caro factum esset.— Lib. v. cap. 14. 



GENERAL. VIEWS. 



317 



ture, a thing superior to flesh and blood. Now, it is not 
proper to say that what is inferior possesses that which is 
superior ; therefore, it is not proper to say that flesh and 
blood possesses eternal life ; but it would be perfectly pro- 
per to say that eternal life possesses flesh and blood. This 
interpretation, I am afraid, does not possess sufficient in- 
genuity to hide, or to atone for its grievous inaccuracy. 
It proceeds upon the supposition, which was then the esta- 
blished interpretation, that the risen and glorified bodies 
of the saints are still literally flesh and blood ; and on the 
latter clause of the verse, — " neither doth corruption in- 
herit incorruption," he simply returns to that interpreta- 
tion, observing that that is not corruption which is cor- 
rupted, but that which corrupts ; and, therefore, the sen- 
tence of exclusion from the kingdom of God refers not to 
the flesh, but to the corruptions of the flesh. 

When this view of the text was first promulgated, no 
such thing as Pelagianism was known or feared, else when 
the Fathers felt themselves called upon to repel the conclu- 
sion, as to the sinfulness of flesh and the evil of matter, 
which the Gnostics drew from this text, they would have 
at the same time been effectually deterred from adopting a 
view of it, of a character so decidedly Pelagian. t But 
when we find the Fathers labouring in the very fire to 
evade the argument founded on this text by the Gnostics, 
and labouring to evade it by an interpretation with which 
we may be surprised that they could for one moment be 
satisfied, — an interpretation which we may be assured 
they never would have dreamed of, had they not been 
driven into it by their dread of Gnosticism. I would ask, 
is it in the power of any human being to believe, in the 
face of such facts, that in reality the Fathers admitted the 
very interpretation which the Gnostics gave to the text ? 
iSTay, that they actually maintained that the flesh of Christ 
was fallen sinful flesh? When we find the Fathers actu- 
ally opposing a most determined, and I regret to add, a 
most injudiciously conducted opposition to the Gnostics, 



318 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



(attempting to prove that " flesh and blood" in the text 
under notice are to be understood figuratively,) is it in our 
power to believe that after all they were perfectly agreed 
with the Gnostics, upon that very point on which such op- 
position was offered ? This is to believe, and that in defi- 
ance of the most undeniable facts, and the most overwhelm- 
ing evidence, that the Fathers had abandoned one of the 
principal grounds which separated them from the Gnostics ; 
and, moreover, that they abandoned that ground upon the 
point which above all others made it a matter of import- 
ance to maintain it ; and, to complete the climax, that 
while they abandoned this ground upon this most import- 
ant point, they still continued to maintain it upon points of 
inferior moment ; for I suppose nobody asserts that they 
actually went over to the Gnostics, and embraced all their 
notions with regard to flesh and matter. Yet all this we 
must believe, if we believe that the Fathers held the doc- 
trine that our Lord's humanity was fallen sinful humanity. 
We must believe that to be true which our own eyes show 
us to be the reverse of the truth; and must hold the 
Fathers to have maintained a doctrine which we find them 
opposing with a zeal which leads them directly into an op- 
posite error. 

Nor is this all. I have already had occasion to remark 
how very unfavourably the character of the Apostle John 
contrasts with that of the modern teachers of the sinfulness 
of our Lord's flesh. The Fathers must come in for their full 
share in the censure. They saw the heresy which denies 
that Christ has come u in the flesh," meeting them at every 
point, perverting their disciples, desolating their churches, 
and poisoning the streams of life. Yet, when the advo- 
cates of that heresy come forward to say that they deny 
that Christ really took flesh, because, if he did so, it must 
have been sinful flesh, how do the Fathers meet them ? Do 
they openly and boldly avow that this is indeed a funda- 
mental point in their theology ? Do they proclaim it with 
all that zeal which led them to face the stake and the wild 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



319 



beasts, that the Gnostics were on this point perfectly right, 
— that unless Christ took sinful flesh, he must be held not 
to have taken flesh at all ? No, they treated this argument 
of the Gnostics as a most unfounded calumny ; and go so 
far away from it as to maintain that we enter into heaven 
with all the literal reality of flesh and blood. But would the 
modern teachers of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh have 
done this ? No, indeed. They profess to find the heresy 
which denies that Christ has come u in the flesh," deeply in- 
fecting the Church at present. It cannot, however, be ever 
pretended that that heresy infects the Church at present as 
deeply as it did in primitive times. Unguarded language 
may have been used when there was no suspicion that it 
would be strained by a wire- drawing criticism into mean- 
ings that it never meant. Even such language I have not 
met with, but that is no proof that such language may not 
have been used. But assuredly we have not now been going 
from city to city, and from church to church, openly 
avowing, and earnestly inculcating the doctrine that our 
Lord's body was not flesh and blood, but a mere phantom ; 
and perverting the faith of many. Yet while the heresy, 
if it exist at all, which I more than doubt, exists in a form 
the danger of which is not for a moment to be compared 
with that in which it manifested itself in primitive times ; 
it is met in a manner in which the Fathers never dreamed 
of meeting it. There is now no room left to impute it as 
a reproach, or to urge it as an argument, that if Christ 
took flesh at all, it must have been sinful flesh ; and there 
is no attempting to escape the imputation, and to evade 
the argument by an interpretation of a text which will not 
stand a moment's examination. Jfot only are the truth of 
the imputation and the validity of the argument, which 
was so zealously repelled by the Fathers, fully admitted, 
but they are maintained with a zeal which no Gnostic 
ever surpassed ; and interpretations of Scripture have been 
advanced in their support wilder by far than any that the 
Fathers ever produced to oppose them. How little, then. 



320 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



did the Fathers know of the real nature of Christianity ! 
or how small was their zeal in its support ! You must ad- 
mit, said the Gnostics, that if Christ took real flesh, it must 
have been sinful flesh ; and the Fathers fly to the most 
palpably inaccurate interpretations of Scripture, in order 
to get quit of what they considered a most injurious impu- 
tation. That imputation is now adopted as the grand fun- 
damental truth of Christianity. The sinfulness of Christ's 
flesh is as openly avowed, and as zealously maintained, as 
it was openly denied, and zealously opposed by the Fathers. 
And as if this were a small thing, we are called upon to 
believe that the Fathers really maintained a dogma which 
we find them opposing in every page. If the doctrine of 
the sinfulness of Christ's flesh be true, the Fathers must 
stand convicted either of grievous ignorance, or of still 
more grievous unfaithfulness. Compare any volume of 
any of the Fathers with any volume of any of the defend- 
ers of the sinfulness of the Lord's humanity ; and consider, 
too, how much more urgently the former were called upon 
to insist upon that doctrine if it be true, than the latter 
can possibly be ; and the Fathers will be found deserving 
of a reprobation for their ignorance and unfaithfulness, 
which must render their opinions upon any subject totally 
unworthy of the slightest regard. The glory of antiquity, 
if our Lord's flesh were really sinful, will be found to be 
utterly dimmed, when compared with the surpassing know- 
ledge, and irrepressible zeal and faithfulness of those who 
at present maintain that doctrine. When we find that on 
being charged with maintaining, by implication, the doc- 
trine that Christ took sinful flesh, they were so far from 
avowing this to be true, — so far from making this doctrine 
the great burden of their preaching, and glorying in it, 
that, either through a most unaccountable ignorance, or a 
most inexcusable, — and in men who willingly suffered mar- 
tyrdom, — an equally unaccountable timidity, they shrunk 
away from the doctrine as from a grievous impiety, and 
fled from it to interpretations of Scripture which neither 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



321 



they who admit, nor they who deny, that doctrine can ap- 
prove, we must allow that the men, u of whom the world 
was not worthy," were not in reality worthy of the world's 
slightest regard. I can only desire the reader, who has 
the opportunity, to compare the writings of the Fathers 
who so strongly, — and often in so injudicious a manner, I 
admit, — denied the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, with 
those of the modern writers who maintain that doctrine ; 
and then determine for themselves whether the eulogy of 
the Apostle Paul was unmerited or not. 

The whole history of the Gnostic controversy will afford 
to those who have an opportunity of entering into it, evi- 
dence that the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh was a doctrine 
held in utter abhorrence by the Fathers, just as clear and 
decisive as that afforded by that view of the discussion up- 
on 1 Cor. xv. 50, which I have given. But I cannot en- 
ter farther into it here. 

The Apollinarian heresy will also afford us a clear view 
of their sentiments upon this point. This heresy took its 
rise from Apollinarius the younger, bishop of Laodicea, and 
one of the most accomplished men of antiquity, about the 
year 370. His followers were very soon subdivided into 
various parties ; but I have no occasion to enter into par- 
ticulars. The distinguishing tenet of this heresy was, that 
our Lord took only a human body, but not a reasonable 
soul. The ground upon which they argued was this, that 
a human body and a reasonable soul constitute a human 
person ; if, therefore, Christ assumed both a body and a 
reasonable soul, he assumed not human nature merely, but 
a human person. There would thus be in Christ two per- 
sons; and, moreover, an additional person would be intro- 
duced into the Trinity, which would thus become a Qua- 
ternity. Their common saying was, We worship not a 
God-bearing Man, but a flesh-bearing God ; and they 
charged the Catholics with man-worship, because they 
held that Christ, as he was perfect God, was also perfect 
Man. In order to avoid dividing Christ, which they 



322 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



charged the Catholics with doing, they maintained that he 
made the body which he assumed consubstantial with his 
Divinity. 

The Catholics had in this case two things to do ; they had 
a very fatal heresy to oppose, and they had a very serious 
charge to repel. How they opposed the heresy, and proved 
that Christ took a reasonable soul, as well as a true body, 
has already been seen in the first part. I have here only 
to notice the manner in which they met the charge of di- 
viding Christ, and introducing an additional person into the 
Trinity. This charge was founded upon their denial that 
the flesh of Christ was consubstantial with his Divinity. 
^nTow, this is a charge which, had the Catholics held the 
doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, would have com- 
pelled them not merely to state that doctrine, but to bring 
it forward in the most distinct and prominent manner, and 
to urge it as earnestly as it is urged by those who hold that 
doctrine now ; for it is not possible to conceive a more 
simple, direct, and decisive reply to the charge, that they 
made the flesh of Christ an additional person in the 
Trinity, than simply to say, that so far were they from mak- 
ing the flesh of Christ an additional person in the Trinity, 
or an object of worship at all, that they held his flesh to be 
fallen, sinful, wicked flesh, guilty, and alienated from 
God. This reply would at once have effectually silenced 
the most obstinate Apollinarian. He would have been 
compelled to admit that he did not understand them to 
have such a view of the flesh of Christ as this, else he as- 
suredly would never have accused them of making it an 
additional person in the Trinity, an additional object of 
worship ; how clearly soever he must still hold them guilty 
of dividing the indivisible Christ of God. Yet if ever 
this simple and decisive reply was given by the Catholics, 
I can only say, that I have never met with it, nor ever 
been able to detect the slightest trace of it. That the 
Apollinarians did not believe the Catholics to hold the 
doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, any more than 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



323 



they themselves did, is perfectly clear, because they 
brought against them a charge totally irreconcileable with 
that notion. And that the Catholics in reality held no 
such doctrine, is equally clear from the fact, that they did 
not, in their disputes with the Apollinarians, bring for- 
ward a doctrine which would have enabled them to give, 
in a single sentence, the most overwhelming refutation of 
the grievous charge brought against them by these here- 
tics. Or, if it be alleged that they actually did bring for- 
ward the doctrine in question, in a dispute which so im- 
periously required it to be brought forward in the most 
prominent manner, let the passage be produced that it 
may be examined. And if no such argument as that fur- 
nished by the doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh 
was used by the Catholics against the accusations of the 
Apollinarians, the omission must be held to be fatal to the 
assertion, that that doctrine had a place in the faith of 
the primitive Church. Even the Apollinarians brought 
no such charge against it. 

This view of the manner in which the Catholics did not 
meet the charge of the Apollinarians, will derive con- 
siderable light from a view of the manner in which they 
really did meet it. They not only rebutted, but success- 
fully retorted the charge by reasoning in this conclusive 
manner : — 4 You say that the flesh of Christ was consub- 
stantial with his Divinity. But consubstantiality implies 
an identity of substance, together with a distinct person- 
ality. Thus the Son is consubstantial with the Father ; 
that is, he is of the same substance with the Father. But 
then, if he were one person, as he is one nature with the 
Father, — if he had not a distinct personality, then there 
is no ground upon which he could be said to be consub- 
stantial with the Father. Without this distinct person- 
ality he would be not consubstantial, but identical with 
the Father. You, therefore, in making the flesh of Christ 
consubstantial with the Word, make that flesh indeed to 



324 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



be Divine, but yon make it a distinct person from the Word ; 
for that flesh cannot possibly both be the Word, and be 
also consubstantial with the Word.' The Apollinarians 
were thus effectually proved to be guilty of that very error 
which they attributed to the Catholics. In declaring the 
flesh to be consubstantial with the Word, they clearly 
taught that it was a distinct person from the Word, — for 
a person cannot be consubstantial with himself, — and thus 
introduced an additional person into the Trinity. 

The first writer who reasons against the Apollinarians 
in this manner is Athanasius, in his admirable letter to 
Epictetus, Bishop of Corinth, upon the subject. I prefer, 
however, exhibiting the argument as it is given by Am- 
brose, who has stated it in language so perfectly similar 
to that of Athanasius, as to make it clear that he borrowed 
it from that author ; while he gives it in a somewhat im- 
proved form. In reference to the accusations of the 
Apollinarians, he says : — c ISTor do I fear lest I should seem 
to introduce a Quaternity : for we truly worship only a 
Trinity who assert this, — namely, that Christ had a soul as 
-well as a body, and had not fiesh consubstantial with the Di- 
vinity. — For I do not divide Christ when I distinguish be- 
tween the substance of his flesh and of his Divinity ; but 
I preach one Christ, with the Father, and the Spirit of 
God ; and I will demonstrate that they rather introduce a 
Quaternity who maintain that the flesh of Christ is of the 
same substance with his Divinity. For what is consub- 
stantial is not one person, but one thing, — non unus, sed 
unum ; for certainly the Mcene Fathers, confessing the 
Son to be consubstantial with the Father, believed not 
that there was one Person but one Divinity in the Father 
and the Son. When, therefore, they— the Apollinarians 
namely — say, that the flesh was of the same substance as 
the Son of God, they themselves, by the absurdity of their 
assertion, do what they object to us, — they divide Christ. 
They therefore introduce a fourth uncreated person whom 



GENERAL VIEWS-. 



325 



we may adore ; while there is nothing uncreated saving 
the Godhead of the Trinity.' 1 

Thus the Apollinarian controversy affords us evidence 
of the most decisive kind, that the sinfulness of Christ's 
flesh was a doctrine totally rejected by the primitive 
Church. We have the distinct testimony of the Apolli- 
narians to this, for they charge the Catholics with making 
the humanity of our Lord a distinct person of the God- 
head. And the Catholics themselves, even though urged 
by such a charge, never attempt to meet it by declaring 
their belief that the humanity of our Lord, so far from 
being a distinct person of the Godhead, was fallen sinful 
humanity, but employ a very different mode of reasoning 
in order to escape the charge. 

That the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity formed no 
part of the faith of the primitive Church, is clear from this 

1 Nec timeo ne tetrada videar inducere, nos enim vere solam, qui hoc ad- 
serimus, colimus Trinitatem. Non enim Christum divid'o, cum carnis ejus 
(hvinitatisque distinguo substantiam : sed unum Christum cum Patre et 
Spiritu Dei praedico, et illos magis qui carnem Christi unius cum divinitate 
ejus dicunt esse substantias, tetrada inducere demonstrabo. Xon enim quod 
ejusdem substantia est, unus, sed unum est ; nam utique Fihum ejusdem 
cum Patre substantias confitentes, in tractatu concilii Xicceni, non unam per- 
sonam, sed unam divinitatem in Patre et Filio crediderunt. Ergo cum di- 
cunt ejusdem carnem, cujus et Filius Dei erat, fuisse substantias; ipsi quod 
nobis objiciunt ineptiis vanae adsertionis incmTunt, ut dividant Christum. 
Itaque quartum increatum, quod adoremus, inducunt ; cum sola increata sit 
divinitas Trinitatis. — Be Jncarnationis Dominicce Sacramento, cap. 7. I must 
request the attention of the reader to the original. The concluding sen- 
tence of the argument, as given by Athanasius in his letter to Epictetus, 
whence it seems plain that Ambrose borrowed it, is as follows: — Q e g yap 

viog coy xoff oivl-ovg opoovaiog %j UaTigi, ovx. z<fliv etifiog Tldclug, 
ccX>.os, viog Kpog Tlals^a "hsyfiai opoovaiog. ovlag % ofAOOvaiov 
aco^cotlov Aoyov ovx, eoltv avlog 6 Aoyog, #AA' el ego v T^oglou 
Aoyov. 'ILlsgov OS oflog, select jeeti avlovg q otvjco Tgictg 
Ifloag. For the Son being, according to them, consubstantial with the 
Father, is not himself the Father, but is called the Son consubstantial with the 
Father : even so the consubstantial body of the Word is not itself the Word, 
but another with the Word. But being another, the Trinity will, according 
to them, be a Quaternity. 



326 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



also, that that doctrine is just an extension of the heresy 
of Nestorius, which was solemnly condemned in a general 
Council, and has been reprobated by every Catholic writer. 
To say that Christ was fallen and sinful is so direct blas- 
phemy, that I suppose no man will venture to use such 
language. But to apply to the humanity of Christ lan- 
guage which it would be held not only improper, but even 
blasphemous, to apply to Christ himself, is to divide Christ, 
more clearly and more violently than Nestorius ever did. 
To use language with regard to any department of Christ's 
person, which cannot be properly used with regard to the 
whole undivided person, is very distinctly to make two 
persons in Christ. I think it has already been satisfac- 
torily shown, that even supposing the existence of such a 
thing as a fallen nature possible, yet it can exist only as 
the nature of a fallen person. If, then, there was in Christ 
a fallen nature, there was in him a fallen person. ~No pro- 
position, I conceive, can be clearer than this, that if the 
humanity of our Lord was fallen and sinful, then either 
our Lord himself was a fallen and sinful person, or the hu- 
manity was a person distinct from himself. If the doctrine 
of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity be admitted, then 
must it also be admitted that in him there were not two 
natures united indissolubly in one person ; but two persons 
in a state of unceasing opposition to one another. The 
one person, infected with all the evil propensities of fallen 
man, was perpetually lusting after all forbidden things ; 
while the constant employment of the other person was 
just to repress and control these evil propensities, and to 
compel the person, in whom they resided, to yield an unwill- 
ing obedience to God ; such an obedience as Satan yields. 

Now, this is Nestorianism, carried to an extent to which 
Nestorius never dreamed of carrying it, and from which he 
would indeed have shrunk with horror. He protested to 
the last that he believed that there were in Christ two 
natures and one person. But this could avail him nothing 
in the face of language and arguments which plainly im * 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



327 



plied that the humanity had a distinct personality ; lan- 
guage and arguments, however, which are orthodoxy 
itself whan compared with those to which we are now 
accustomed. If the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's 
humanity be true, then it is clear that the only just ground 
upon which Nestorius could have been condemned, was 
for not carrying his principles far enough. A division of 
the person of Christ was clearly enough implied in what 
he taught, though he denied, as loudly as the teachers of 
the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity can deny, that he 
held any such opinion. And he could make the denial 
upon much better grounds than they can ; for he held that 
the humanity was, by its union with the divinity, invest- 
ed with equal power and dignity with the Word, and was 
equally the object of veneration and worship. Indeed, the 
Nestorianism of ISTestorius is an absolute trifle when com- 
pared with the Nestorianism of the present day. And if 
the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh was held by the 
Fathers assembled at Ephesus, it was natural enough that 
they should condemn Nestorius ; but then they could con- 
demn him only for not being sufficiently ISTestorian, — for being 
incomparably less of a ISTestorian than themselves. Unless, 
then, we be prepared to maintain a position so utterly ridi- 
culous as this, that Nestorius was condemned for not being 
sufficiently Nestorian, — for not being deeply enough im- 
bued with the heresy to which he gave his name, — we 
cannot maintain that the sinfulness of Christ's flesh was 
a doctrine of the primitive Church. 

This matter may be placed in a different point of view. 
The same person cannot be both fallen and unfallen. Now, 
God has a Son begotten of his substance from all eternity, 
and who can never be said to be fallen. This same per- 
son did, for the purpose of manifesting the Divine perfec- 
tions through the medium of our salvation, condescend to 
be begotten in time, of the substance of the Virgin Mary. 
But if the Son of God, begotten in time, was a fallen sinful 
Son, then it is plain that there are two Sons, two Lords, 



328 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



two only begottens ; for the fallen Son, and the unfallen 
Son, cannot be one and the same Son, but must of plain 
necessity be two Sons. This was one of the consequences 
deduced from the language of Nestorius, though he denied 
that such a deduction could be fairly made. Few, I appre- 
hend, will be disposed to deny, that it is at least fairly 
deducible from that theology which divides the person of 
Christ more openly and more violently by far than ever 
did Nestorius. The new theology admits, what is indeed 
too palpable to be either denied or doubted, that sin can 
be no otherwise than in a person. It teaches also that 
every possible variety of human wickedness was inherent 
in the humanity of our Lord. The consequence is clear as 
light, that that humanity was a person ; and that person 
being the Son of God as well as the Son of Man, there are 
two Sons and two Christs. If the primitive Church held 
the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity,. I would 
ask again, upon what possible ground could Nestorius be 
condemned, unless it was for not being sufficiently Nes- 
torian ? 

I would next advert to the Manichaaan doctrine, as 
affording another decisive proof that the sinfulness of our 
Lord's humanity was no doctrine of the primitive Church. 
Augustine unquestionably knew well what was the doctrine 
of the Church, of which he was one of the brightest orna- 
ments, and one of the ablest defenders. Now, Augustine, 
as we have already seen, declares the doctrine of the sin- 
fulness of Christ's flesh to be an " outrageous blasphemy" 
and a " detestable heresy." But he goes still farther, and 
repeatedly and strongly maintains, in opposing Mani- 
chaeism, that no such thing as an evil nature ever did exist, 
or by any possibility ever can exist. Now, the question is 
not at present whether Augustine was right or wrong, but, 
in denying that our Lord took a sinful nature, nay, in deny- 
ing the possibility of the existence of such a nature, was 
he aware that he was ploughing up the very foundation of 
Christianity ? Did he conceive that, in denying that Christ 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



329 



took such a nature, he was in reality denying that Christ 
was man at all ? He himself certainly believed no such 
thing. Nor did any of his contemporaries, or, as far as 
I know, any of those who have gathered delight and im- 
provement from his writings in succeeding ages, bring any 
such charge against him. He denied that our Lord took 
fallen flesh, though he took it of a fallen mother ; he de- 
nied that he took a fallen sinful nature, for he denied that 
any such nature ever existed. And yet he neither him- 
self suspected, nor did any other ever suspect him, of hav- 
ing, in so doing, opposed the doctrine of the Church, nay, 
of having thrown down the very corner-stone of all sound 
theology. 

It may be remarked, too, that if Augustine was actually 
opposing the received doctrine of the Church, when de- 
claring that the flesh of Christ was not sinful, and that 
there is no such thing as an evil nature, then the great 
principle upon which he assails Manichseism completely 
fails, and the fundamental tenet upon which that system 
is built, is clearly proved to form an essential part of 
primitive Christianity. Augustine reprobates, in terms of 
the most unmeasured severity, the doctrine that the flesh 
of Christ was sinful, not differing frorn ours in any thing. 
Was it the grand foundation of all sound theology of which 
he thus speaks ; and speaks without having ever been re- 
proved for it ? Augustine maintains that there is no evil 
nature, and, consequently, could not believe that Christ 
took such a nature. Was he utterly wrong ? and must 
Manichgeism be still admitted as an essential part of or- 
thodox Christianity ? It may surely be hoped that in the 
present age there are few indeed capable of admitting this. 
Yet if the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity 
was the doctrine of the primitive Church, all this must in- 
evitably be admitted. 

I have, laying by me, an octavo volume in defence of 
Montanism, the great object of which is to prove that all 
the primitive Christians were Montanists, and the modest 



330 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



title of which is — u The general Delusion of Christians, 
touching the Ways of God's revealing Himself to and by 
the Prophets, evinced from Scripture and primitive Anti- 
quity." Dr Priestley has written six volumes to prove that 
they were all Unitarians, in the Socinian sense of that word. 
We are now required to believe that they were all Nesto- 
rians, and, moreover, all Manichseans. Absurdity is surely 
exhausted ; and I may venture to hope that my work will 
possess somewhat of the charm of novelty, when I attempt 
to show that the members of the primitive Church were 
neither Montanists, nor Socinians, nor Nestorians, nor 
Manichseans, but Christians. That with the guilt of the 
two last-mentioned heresies they were not chargeable ; 
and, therefore, that they did not, and could not, admit the 
doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity, (which 
teaches them both as plainly as they were ever taught,) is 
proved, I conceive, as decisively as it is possible for any 
historical fact to be proved, by the view of a few of the 
principal heresies with which they had to contend, which 
has just been given. Proofs drawn from this source might 
be multiplied to an indefinite extent ; but what I have 
drawn from this source of evidence is surely amply suffi- 
cient. Before proceeding to quote more particular testi- 
monies to the fact, that the ancients did not believe in the 
sinfulness of the humanity of our Lord, I may properly 
close these general views, and introduce more particular 
authorities by the testimony of a modern writer, which 
will, I suppose, by all parties be held to be completely de- 
cisive. 

The writer to whom I refer is Doctor Priestley. In pro- 
secuting his great design of proving that all the primitive 
Christians were Socinians, every one at all acquainted with 
the matter will see how highly important it would have 
been for him to prove, that they held our Lord's humanity 
to be, not fallen indeed, which he believed no man to be, 
but in all respects similar to our humanity. He maintains 
that Justin Martyr was the first of the Fathers who taught 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



331 



the Divinity of Christ. It would have been a strong sup- 
port, — and they only who have traced the line of argument 
which he adopts, can see how very strong a support to his 
system it would have been, had he been able to show that 
all the Fathers, both before Justin and after him, down to 
the Council of Nice, believed our Lord's humanity to be 
exactly such as ours. In fact, it was in a great measure 
fatal to his whole system of reasoning to admit, that even 
with regard to his human nature, the Fathers, both before 
and after Justin, considered Christ as being ov 
t>&)Kog, no common man. Of this Priestley was perfectly sen- 
sible. He was bound to prove, if he could, that as to his 
humanity at least, the Fathers held Christ to be merely a 
common man, exactly such as we are. But he felt that any 
attempt to prove this was utterly hopeless. Of such a man, 
with all his errors, I regret to say that he was by no means 
overburdened with scruples. No man was better able to 
rear a plausible theory out of the most slender materials ; 
no man could with more admirable tact mask the strong 
points of an opponent's argument, and the weak points of 
his own ; in short, where he knew his ground, — and in this 
case he had studied it well, — a more skilful tactician never 
took the field of controversy. But with all this, essential as 
it was to him to prove, that the Fathers held Christ, as to 
his humanity, to have been in no respect different from 
other men, yet he did not venture to attempt the proof. 
Even the scanty materials out of which he could have 
framed a plausible proof were not to be had. Such an 
assertion would have been, he well knew, to expose him- 
self to the most overwhelming defeat. He saw well how 
fatal this was to his system ; but he managed the matter 
with his usual skill. Without taking the slightest notice 
of the fatal effect which the doctrine held by the Fathers, 
with regard to the humanity of our Lord, has upon his 
system, he tacitly attempts to neutralize their testimony 
upon the subject, by charging them with maintaining the 
error exactly and diametrically opposed to that of the sin- 



332 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



fulness of our Lord's humanity. He charges them with 
holding an opinion upon the subject, that in effect differed 
little from that of the Gnostics, who openly denied the 
reality of his manhood. He charges them with the very 
same error with which they, who teach the sinfulness of 
our Lord's humanity, so loudly charge the Church at the 
present day. Here is a portion of what he writes on the 
subject : — 

4 Lastly, Some of the Gnostics thought that Christ had 
no real body, and, consequently, had not the sensations or 
feelings of one ; but the orthodox principle of the union of 
the divine nature to the human produced almost the same 
effect. For some of the Catholics supposed that, in conse- 
quence of this union, the body of Christ was exempt from 
all disagreeable sensations ; and, indeed, this was a natural 
consequence of their principles. For if there was a real 
union between the two natures, the sensations of the one 
must have been communicated to the other ; and as it was 
agreed that the divine nature could not feel pain, the 
human nature, in order to enjoy the benefit of the union, 
ought to be exempt from pain also, which we shall find 
was actually held by Hilary. 

\ In general, however, it was maintained that the human 
nature of Christ was as effectually deserted by the divine 
nature in the day of suffering, as the Gnostics had ever 
supposed it to be ; and it is very remarkable how nearly 
the language of the orthodox on this subject approached to 
that of the Gnostics.' 1 

Again, a little after, he says, — 4 It being, therefore, a 
settled point, that the divine nature of Christ could not 
feel pain ; it is no wonder that some of the orthodox should 
have argued with those Gnostics who held that his body, 
or what had the appearance of a body, had not the wants 
and weaknesses of other bodies, and was likewise insen- 
sible of pain.' And a few pages after, — 4 That the body 

* History of Early Opinions, Vol. Ill p. 247. 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



333 



of Christ was naturally incorruptible was an opinion very 
prevalent among the orthodox after the Council of Mce.' 
P. 256. 

So, then, if Priestley cannot get an argument in favour 
of his system, by showing, that, with regard to our Lord's 
humanity, the primitive Christians held that he did not 
differ from us in any thing — an opinion which he would 
have thought a sound one ; he is determined, at least, to 
neutralize the fatal effect of their testimony against him, 
by giving what I must call a very unfair and exaggerated 
view of the opinion which they really did hold upon the 
subject. The statements which I have quoted from him 
are intermingled with testimonies from a few of the Fathers. 
But in selecting these testimonies, he has been careful just 
to lay hold of a few of the most objectionable expressions 
that he could find ; and these also sometimes taken from 
writers who never had, and never deserved to have, the 
slightest weight or authority in the Church ; and some- 
times from writers whose notorious unsoundness upon the 
question has always been the subject of remark and regret. 
He refers, for example, to Hilary, as openly maintaining 
what he considers as a necessary consequence of orthodox 
principles, that the body of our Lord was exempt from 
pain. Now, he knew perfectly well, that on this point 
Hilary was directly opposed to the orthodox. But then 
he knew also that the accuracy of his reference to that 
writer could not be called in question ; and, therefore, is 
pleased to insinuate the perfect soundness of Hilary, and 
to represent his absurd and heretical views as being neces- 
sarily involved in the principles of the orthodox. The ex- 
treme unfairness of this is but ill-atoned-for by the insidi- 
ous admission which immediately follows, that in general 
it was believed that the human nature was effectually de- 
serted by the divine in the hour of suffering. Whether 
the reference to Hilary, or the apparent concession which 
follows it, be most unworthy of a man who has truth for 
his object, I shall not attempt to determine. 



334 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



One thing, however, is clear, and it is important. To 
have been able to prove that the primitive Church held 
the doctrine of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, would have 
been to him of more value than all the other facts which 
he has brought forward. But he felt it easier to under- 
take the task — the hopeless, indeed, yet still easier task — 
of proving that the Fathers held exactly the opposite ex- 
treme, and maintained, with regard to our Lord's hu- 
manity, a view that in effect differed little from that of 
the Gnostics, who altogether denied the reality of his flesh. 
Such a testimony, and especially given under such circum- 
stances, is altogether resistless. Fir mum est genus proba- 
tions, quod etiam ab adversario sumitur, ut Veritas etiam ab 
ipsis inimicis veritatis probetur. 

As a general proposition, it is susceptible of abundant 
and satisfactory proof, that the primitive Church was per- 
fectly sound on the subject of our Lord's humanity, neither 
improperly refining it away with the Gnostics, nor yet, on 
the contrary, imputing sinfulness to it. But it cannot be 
denied that the Fathers, especially the earlier of them, 
writing in the simplicity of their hearts, and paying little 
attention to exactness of expression, do occasionally make 
use of language which, if rigorously understood, would 
lead to dangerous error. Their constant tendency, how- 
ever, when they use language that deviates from the line 
of strict orthodoxy, is toward the error of improperly ex- 
alting the humanity of our Lord. So much is this the 
case, that they have afforded to Priestley a plausible 
ground for charging them with Gnosticism. To prove 
this charge is impossible ; yet he felt that he could give to 
it a colour, of which the far more important position to 
him, that they held our Lord's flesh to be fallen and sin- 
ful, is not susceptible. His followers will doubtless re- 
joice, if it can be proved that he was on this point so to- 
tally mistaken, that the primitive Christians actually held 
the opposite extreme to that with which he charges them ; 
and that his attempt to neutralize their testimony by 



GENERAL VIEWS. 



335 



charging them with Gnosticism, is not only desperate, 
but is wholly unnecessary. It could hardly have been 
expected that we should, in the present day, be called 
upon to repel a charge against the Fathers which even 
Priestley could not venture to bring, though, could he have 
proved it, it would have done more for Socinianism than 
all that he has written ; but he preferred the easier task 
of undertaking to prove their agreement with the Gnos- 
tics, who altogether denied our Lord's flesh. The con- 
solation is, that what he did not dare to attempt, his fol- 
lowers can hardly be supposed able to accomplish. In 
the meantime, his devotion to Socinianism gives incalcul- 
able weight to his testimony as to the faith of the primi- 
tive Church upon this important subject. 



CHAPTER IX. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 

In proceeding to produce more particular testimonies from 
antiquity, it will be proper to commence with the deci- 
sions of general Councils. In the Council of Ephesus, held 
in the year 431, the doctrine of Nestorius was condemned, 
though, as I have already had occasion to observe, he 
never divided the person of Christ so clearly or so vio- 
lently as they do who teach that his flesh was fallen and 
sinful. In that Council the celebrated twelve chapters of 
Cyril of Alexandria were adopted as a correct exposition 
of the Catholic faith, with regard to the doctrine of the In- 
carnation. It would be tedious to copy the whole of these, 
but I shall present the reader with two of them. The 
fourth chapter is this: — 4 If any one distribute to two 
persons or hypostases, the expressions which occur in the 
evangelical and apostolical writings, and which are spoken 
either by the saints concerning Christ, or by Christ con- 
cerning himself ; and apply some as suitable to the man, 
considered apart from the Word of God the Father ; and 
others, as suitable to God, solely to the Word of God 
the Father, let him be anathema.' 1 Here a general Coun- 

1 E/ rig 7rQoau7rois (W/v, yyovv vtfovTMiai, rug re e» rotg 
iv&yyiXhiKOig, %c&i UTCOGrohiKOig (rvyy^ctfc/^oiai Qict,ve/Lt£i tyo)- 
vocg, Y} ski X^/ora 7rocQoe> ray ctyiav TiSyo/aeyag, v\ wag avrov 
Trtgi eotvroV koci rag fttv ag ay^aita koiqoi rou tx, (diov 7rotr^og 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



337 



cil of the Christian Church solemnly condemns the appli- 
cation of language to the humanity of our Lord, as con- 
templated apart from his Divinity. And who that has 
attended to what the Bible says upon the subject can 
doubt for a moment the justice of the condemnation ; for 
where do the sacred writers ever apply to one of the two 
natures united in Christ, language which they would not 
apply to the whole undivided and indivisible person of 
Christ ? If it can be shown that there is any one term 
that may truly be applied to either of the natures united 
in Christ, that cannot with perfect propriety and truth be 
applied to Christ, then ISTestorius was right, and the sacred 
writers were' most unnecessarily, nay, most improperly 
scrupulous, for they have misled the orthodox from the 
beginning. But they who teach that the humanity of 
Christ was fallen and sinful humanity, do most directly 
oppose this rule, and incur this anathema; for they do 
apply, to the one nature of Christ, language which they 
would hold it blasphemous to apply to Christ. And they 
do not put us to the trouble of proving, what indeed can 
with little trouble be proved, but openly profess and 
avow, that in their speculations upon that humanity 
which is described as fallen, sinful, guilty, and alienated 
from God, anjl inclined to all forbidden things, they speak 
of it as contemplated apart from the Divine Nature, apart 
from which, if it ever existed, then the Council of Ephesus, 
and the whole Christian Church in all ages, must plead 
guilty to the charge, not merely of unaccountable igno- 
rance, but of fatal error. The Council denounces its ana- 
thema upon those who contemplate the humanity apart 
from the Divinity. They who teach the sinfulness of 
Christ's humanity openly profess to contemplate the hu- 
manity apart from the Divinity, and maintain that they 

ra sx, ®£QV ttc&tqo$ hoya, uvufefiot, s<rra.-—CyriFs Works, Vol. vi. 
p. 187. 



338 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



have the authority of the Primitive Church, and, indeed, 
of the Catholic Church in all ages, for their speculations. 
Here, then, the only question is, whether shall we believe 
the unsupported assertion of a few modern writers, or the 
solemn declaration of the Council of Ephesus with regard 
to the faith of the Primitive Church ? And this is a ques- 
tion which I suppose no reader would thank me for wast- 
ing a moment in determining. 

The following is the eleventh of the twelve chapters : — c If 
any one confesseth not that the flesh of our Lord was 
quickening, and the very flesh of the very Word of God 
the Father ; but maketh it as it were the flesh of some 
other besides him, conjoined with him in dignity ; or as 
flesh having the divinity dwelling in it, and not rather that 
it was quickening, because made the very flesh of the 
Word, who is able to quicken all things, let him be ana- 
thema.' 1 That the Council was perfectly orthodox in its 
sentiments, there is no room to doubt ; but that this lan- 
guage is very objectionable, inasmuch as it is extremely 
liable to abuse, cannot be denied. Had such language 
been used by any of the defenders of the Catholic faith in 
the present day, no terms of reprobation would have been 
found sufiiciently strong to characterize it. Nor do I say 
this upon conjecture ; for every term of reprobation has 
been exhausted, by those who maintain the sinfulness of 
our Lord's humanity, upon language from which no such 
meaning could be extorted, as that which may be so na- 
turally and easily deduced from the language of the Coun- 
cil of Ephesus. No fault, however, was found with the 

- E* ng ov% oftoTioyei tyivtov Kvgwv o~ex,(>x,ci ^oio^oiov eivc&i, 
y.GLi ihtav ocvrov rov sx, &eov zsotr^og T^oyov, ctAA cjg krsgov ri- 
vog nra^ ccvtoi* avvYj/afievov fteu ocvreo xotrcx, rv\u ot§ ai/, yyovv 
ojg povYiv Sslc&v evoixviati/ ia%Yix,orog, x,ou ov%i Sjj pciKhov fao- 
Toiov, ug sQYipev, on yzyovzu i6ici rov Aoyoy rov roe, ir&vra, 
fyoKQiuu to-%vovrog, uvaQepoe, sera. — OyriVs Works, Vol. vi. p. 190. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



339 



strongest of the language in ancient times. Cyril, who 
penned it, was looked upon as the very standard of ortho- 
doxy, though his writings contain much language still 
more objectionable than this. The Oriental bishops who 
opposed the twelve chapters, showed very plainly by the 
objections which they made to them, that their opposi- 
tion arose from personal pique against Cyril, and from no 
doubt whatever as to the soundness of his doctrine ; the 
orthodoxy of which very soon after the sitting of the 
Council they very fully admitted, though they objected, 
and I think very justly, to some of the terms in which it 
was expressed. But that they were far from objecting to 
that language, on account of its distinct condemnation of 
the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, appears 
very clearly both from their own remarks upon it, and 
from those of Theodoret their great defender. I shall 
quote a few lines from the latter, which will clearly show 
this. He first charges Cyril with embracing in this chap- 
ter the Apollinarian heresy, because he mentions only the 
flesh of Christ, without noticing his soul ; a heresy of which 
Cyril not only was not guilty, for by flesh he meant the 
whole humanity, but of which Theodoret could hardly 
help knowing that he was not guilty. After thus attach- 
ing to the chapter a heresy to which it gives no counte- 
nance, he concludes his remarks thus : — 4 But we declare 
the animated and rational flesh of the Lord to be quicken- 
ing, through the quickening Godhead united to it. But 
he himself reluctantly confesses the difference of the two 
natures, when he mentions flesh, and God the Word, and 
calls it his own flesh. God the Word then was not 
changed into the nature of flesh, but has his own proper 
flesh, namely the assumed nature, which he made quicken- 
ing by the union.' 1 Now, nothing but the heat of one of 

tgv Kvgiov GoigKce., ty}!/ qvafievviv ccvtyi ^ao7rotov Ssotyitx. 
O/uohoyei !)e ocvrog attay rav "hvo (pvatMv to' ?){ci(pogov, aagxcc 



340 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



the fiercest controversies that ever agitated the Church, 
would have prevented so able, and so very candid a writer 
as Theodoret from seeing, what he afterwards very readily 
owned, that his own doctrine was precisely that of Cyril, 
and expressed indeed in almost the very terms of Cyril. 
The most objectionable at least of these terms, the 'quick- 
ening flesh,' he uses without scruple ; only he takes care 
to show that by flesh he means not merely the body of 
Christ, but his complete manhood. But then Cyril and 
the Council meant this just as certainly as he did, only 
they did not put in the words ' animated and rational,' 
in order to show that it was not merely of the body of 
Christ that they were speaking, when they talked of his 
flesh ; as they could not anticipate that any person would 
so far misunderstand them, as to suspect them of a lean- 
ing to the heresy of Apollinarius. Now, let the reader, 
who is interested in this question, (and I take for granted 
that every Christian feels deeply interested in it,) compare 
the language, I do not say of the Catholic Council of 
Ephesus, but the language of Theodoret while writing 
expressly against that Council, — of Theodoret, who suf- 
fered muclr in his person while living, and much in his 
reputation when dead, as a Eestorian, with the language 
against which such a vehement outcry of heresy has been 
raised at the present day ; and let him determine whether 
the latter ever could give a thousandth part of the ground 
for the outcry which is given by the former against the 
opposite heresy of Eutyches. Nay, let him compare the 
language of Theodoret, the accused and persecuted Nes- 
torian, — let me do him the justice of saying, most unjustly 
accused of that heresy, and most iniquitously persecuted 
for it, — with the habitual language of those who charge all 
Asy^v, x,ut Ssov "hoyou, zxi t^tocu avrov ^^oaayoQSVoi/ rr,u c#£- 
x.ot» Ovxovv ov% o ®eog T^oyog iig ac&gxog er^»7rvj (pvaiv, eOOC 
toiocv £%ei goi(>x,m, tyiv cx,v olTwiQQzigoiv (pvciu, koli £c<)07roiOv 
scvry}!/ TV} kvaaei vrevroivixev. — Theodorefs Work?, Vol. iv. p. 721 ; and 
Cyril's Works, Vol. vi. p. 237. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



341 



with ASTestorianism who deny that the flesh of Christ was 
fallen, sinful, wicked flesh ; and then let him tiy to im- 
agine, if he can, what sentence the Council which con- 
demned Theodoret would have pronounced upon those 
who are guilty of such language. If they be right, then 
nothing can be more clear than the fact, that all the pre- 
tended denials of the flesh of Christ in the present day 
are perfectly orthodox, when compared with the gross 
and glaring heresy of the Council of Ephesus ; and even 
with the heresy of Theodoret, repeatedly condemned for 
the very opposite heresy of Nest onanism. In fact, while 
I have seen no language used by any defender of the Ca- 
tholic faith in the present day, from which any thing ap- 
proaching to a denial of the flesh of Christ could by any 
fair interpretation be inferred ; the language of both the 
Council of Ephesus and of Theodoret is such, that though 
I doubt not the soundness of their sentiments, yet I should 
be sorry to defend the mode in which these sentiments 
are expressed. For I think that a very rigid interpreter 
of the language quoted above, might easily find both 
guilty of incautiously and unintentionally making by far 
too near an approach to that heresy, with which the 
Church is at present so groundlessly charged. 

I proceed next to the Council of Chalcedon in 451. If 
ever the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was fallen sin- 
ful flesh was held by the Church, then the open and un- 
equivocal expression of that doctrine was imperiously 
called for here. Neither the Gnostic nor the Apollinarian 
heresy more urgently demanded the expression of that 
doctrine, than did the heresy of Eutyches which was con- 
demned in this Council. Eutyches maintained that after 
the Incarnation there was still only one nature in Christ, 
formed by some unintelligible mingling of the human and 
divine natures. He thus made Christ a person neither 
human nor divine, but something more than man, and less 
than God. While, therefore, he exalted the humanity of 
our Lord too high, as if it had been absorbed by the Divi- 



342 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



nity, and was no longer true humanity, we might expect 
to hear from every quarter of the Council the plain, distinct, 
and urgent declarations, not merely that the human and 
divine nature remained perfectly distinct and unmixed in 
Christ, but that he was not only really man, but a fallen 
sinful man. Had some of the six hundred and thirty 
bishops assembled used language which might seem to de- 
rogate from the dignity of our Lord's humanity, — to imply, 
nay openly to declare, that it was fallen sinful humanity, 
there not only would have been no reason to be surprised 
at it ; but had they believed that doctrine, then were they, 
with all their zeal, guilty of a grievous dereliction of duty 
in not expressly embodying that doctrine in their canons. 
There is certainly no such necessity now as there was then, 
for inculcating the doctrine that Christ, as to his humanity, 
differed nothing whatever from us in guiltiness and aliena-. 
tion from God. Yet so far was the Council from inculcat- 
ing and reiterating that doctrine, that they condemn it in 
terms as clear and express as can be chosen. 

In this Council the letter of the Council of Ephesus to 
Nestorius was read, and received with acclamations. The 
Council also adopted, as a correct exposition of the faith 
of the Church upon the subject, a letter addressed by Leo 
bishop of Rome, to Flavian bishop of Constantinople, the 
following extract from which will show what were their 
sentiments with regard to the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh. 
After stating that the properties of the two natures remain 
entire in the one person of Christ, who was totus in suis, 
totus in nostris, the letter thus proceeds : — c But those 
things we call ours which the Creator formed in us from 
the beginning, and which Christ assumed that he might 
restore. For as for those things which the deceiver brought 
in, and man, being deceived, admitted — there was no ves- 
tige of them in the Saviour. Nor because he undertook 
the communion of human infirmities, was he therefore a 
partaker of our delinquencies. He assumed the form of a 
servant without the defilement of sin, increasing what was 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



343 



human, not diminishing what was divine. 11 I quote not 
this as the language of Leo, who in many parts of his 
writings, especially in his Sermons upon the Nativity, de- 
nies the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, but as the language of 
the Council of Chalcedon, which adopted it as the expres- 
sion of their own decision upon the subject. Now the 
reader I think will agree with me, that if a Council were 
assembled at present, in order to condemn the doctrine of 
those who declare that the flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, 
wicked flesh ; that taking flesh of a fallen sinful woman, 
he partook of his mother's impurity ; that his will was in 
bondage to the devil, the world, and the flesh ; they could 
not condemn such impieties in more pointed or appropriate 
terms than those used by the Council of Chalcedon. Had 
the Council believed any such doctrine, had they believed 
that in our Lord was that law of the members which waiv 
reth against the law of the mind, — that lusting of the flesh 
against the Spirit, — that inclination to all forbidden things, 
— and all the evil propensities of the fallen man, which we 
derive from the fall of Adam, could they by any possibility 
have declared, that c as for those things which the deceiver 
brought in, and man, being deceived, admitted, there was 
no vestige of them in the Saviour ?' 

We have then the clear unequivocal testimony of two 
general Councils against the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
our Lord's flesh. There is another Council to which I 
would gladly refer, but I can find no copy of its anathemas. 
I mean the fifth general Council, which was held at Con- 
stantinople. The reader who has the opportunity of con- 
sulting these anathemas will find it decreed in one of them, 
(the thirteenth I believe, but am not sure,) that Christ is to 
be worshipped according to both his natures, with one and 

1 Nostra autem dicimus, quae in nobis ab initio Creator condidit, et qufe 
reparanda suscepit. Nam ilia quse deceptor intulit, et homo deceptus admisit, 
nullum habuere in Salvatore vestigium. Nec quia communionem human- 
arum subiit infirmitatum, ideo nostrorum fuit particeps delictorum. Assump- 
sit formam servi, sine sorde peccati, humana augens, divina non minuens*— 
Epistles of Leo. Epistle xxiv., in some editions x. 



344 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



the same adoration. It was to this Council that the em- 
peror Justinian presented his celebrated confession of faith. 
In that confession he has embodied a number of anathemas 
against various heresies. One of these anathemas is di- 
rected against Theodore of Mopsuesta, and among a 
variety of opinions attributed to him, I find the following 
condemned, — 4 That Christ suffered trouble from the pas- 
sions of the mind, and from the desires of the flesh — 
4 that by baptism he received the grace of the Holy 
Ghost ;' — and 4 that after the resurrection he was made 
altogether immutable in his thoughts, and impeccable.* 
jSTow, every one of these tenets is intimately connected 
with the doctrine of the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity, 
and may be found openly avowed in the pages of some of 
the defenders of that doctrine. That neither that doc- 
trine nor these tenets formed any portion of the Christian 
faith, nor were to be named but with an anathema, the 
emperor Justinian and the Council of Constantinople are 
very competent witnesses. 

I now pass on to the testimonies of individual writers. 
I shall make my selections from them much less copious 
than I originally intended, because, after the multiplied 
and overwhelming proofs of the utter abhorrence in which 
the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh was held by 
the primitive Christians, and of the entire abrogation of 
all that they held sacred, which the adoption of that tenet 
would have produced, which are furnished by that slight 
and rapid view of some of the principal heresies with 
which they had to contend, which I have given ; and by 
the decisive testimony of several general Councils which I 
have produced ; I feel that to carry out the exhibition of 
individual testimonies to the extent which I at first de- 
signed is totally unnecessary. To all who are free to form 
an impartial conclusion from the evidence laid before them 
on the subject, the evidence that the primitive Church did 
not, and could not, believe in the sinfulness of our Lord's 
flesh, is already more than sufficient. I shall, however, 
exhibit, within as short a compass as I can, the views en- 



PARTICULAR TESTIMOXIE S . 



345 



tertained by the writers of the first four centimes, simply 
premising these two things,— first, that I in no instance 
give a quotation which I have not myself copied from the 
place from which it professes to be taken ; and, second, 
that I give no quotation from an author without meaning 
it to be understood, that, to the best of myjudgment, that 
quotation is a fail* representation of the general sentiments 
of the author quoted upon the subject. To this remark 
there are two exceptions, Hippolytus and Eustathius, my 
quotations from whom are taken from the fragments of 
their works preserved by Theodoret. I have no doubt 
whatever that their sentiments were in perfect unison with 
those of the whole Church, with regard to our Lord's hu- 
manity ; but my acquaintance with their writings is too 
slight to enable me to vouch for this on my own personal 
knowledge. The reader who has the opportunity is 
earnestly requested in every instance to turn to the quota- 
tions in the original, when, if I mistake not, he will find 
them still stronger than in the detached form in which I 
have necessarily given them. 
I begin with 

BAKNABAS, 

the eldest of the Apostolical Fathers, a name familar to 
the readers of the ISTew Testament. Eeferring, in chapter 
vi. to the text, " Behold, I lay in Zion a sure foundation 
stone," he says, 4 Does our hope rest upon a stone then ? 
Far from it ; but because the Lord placed his flesh 1 in 
power : for he saith, I have placed myself as a solid rock.' 1 

1 "hiQov ovu ifiau i zhmg ; t UY} ysvoiro' #AA' bttsi vj ta- . 
■fcvu edr,x,2 tyi'j aoc^xoc mvtov 6 Kvgwg* heyu yocg, x>cx,i s&Yixet 
fts ag (jts^socu ttst^ccv. — The reference here is to Isaiah L 7, where the 
Septuagint has sdyixoc ro ftgoacoTrov fcov ag aregsccv Trergotv, where 
Barnabas has understood 7r^Q(jcd'7irou pov as just equivalent to ; and 
that, as appears from the preceding member of the sentence, is just equiva- 
lent to occgxct. 

p2 



346 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



There is some ambiguity here, as efaxx maybe understood 
in two different senses ; but the sentence cannot be under- 
stood in any sense consistent with a belief that our Lord 
died by the common property of flesh to die, because it 
was accursed in the loins of our first parents. What fol- 
lows is very fanciful, — as indeed is the whole epistle, — 
but it is to the same purpose. He finds the Incarnation 
of our Lord to be expressed by the entrance of Israel in- 
to the land flowing with milk and honey. His argument 
is, that man is just earth endued with sensation, and that 
our Saviour entering into this earth, entered into a good 
land, a land flowing with milk and honey. His language, 
after quoting one of the texts which refer to the land flow- 
ing with milk and honey, is — 4 Learn what knowledge 
saith : Hope in Jesus who is to be manifested to you in 
the flesh. For man is earth endued with sensation ; for 
of the substance of the earth was Adam formed. What 
then saith it ? Into a land flowing with milk and honey. 
Blessed be our Lord who giveth to us wisdom, and the 
understanding of his hidden things.' 1 A little after, hav- 
ing quoted Gen. i. 26, he adds, — 4 Then the Lord see- 
ing man his fair workmanship, he saith, L Increase and 
multiply and replenish the earth.' These things he 
saith to the Son.' lavla ^^og lou viov. In chapter viii., 
speaking of the ashes of the burnt heifer, he says, — 4 But 
why was the wool placed upon wood ? Because the king- 
dom of Jesus was upon wood,' namely, upon the cross. 2 

From these passages, — and he who looks into the origi- 
nal will see, that by detaching them from their context, I 

1 T/ Agyg; vj yituoig, ftctfore* sTiTTiaoCTS £7Tt tov ev ot&QKi 
^iKkourcx, (pavegovcrdoii vpiv lyaov, Ay^&)7rog yn eeri tcolg- 
%ov(iot,' oltto nQoawaov ya^ TYjg yyjg q n'hoiGig rov Ac)c^ syevsro. 
Ti ovv "hsyst ; ryv ynu ryu ocyotdvi!/, mv Qsovaocu ycO^cc xai 

2 On 1)2 TO Z()10V S7TI TO ^YfhOU I GTl T, fis&Gt'hSlGt TOV IwOV 
£7T{ TO ^Vhto. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



347 



have unavoidably weakened them, — it is perfectly clear 
that the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, and his consequent 
liability to death, equally with, and upon the same grounds 
as other men, is a doctrine which Barnabas had probably 
never heard of, and certainly did not believe. I may re- 
mark, too, that however fanciful may be considered his 
understanding earth to mean the flesh of our Lord, we 
shall see in the sequel that one of the ablest writers of 
antiquity, Ambrose of Milan, introduces the same idea, 
and, if possible, in a still more fanciful manner. I may 
remark farther, that in chapter vi. we find the first traces 
of a sentiment that afterwards became a favourite one 
among the Fathers, namely, that as Adam was formed of 
virgin earth, which had not yet been violated by the hand 
of cultivation, even so the second Adam was formed 
of a virgin mother. This sentiment we often meet with 
in the writings of the Fathers. I do not recollect if this 
fact has been adverted to by those who have laboured to 
establish the genuineness of the epistle. It may however 
very well be urged for this purpose ; and it may be still 
more strongly urged as a proof that they who used it be- 
lieved that our Lord differed in his humanity from us as 
widely, and on the same grounds, as unfallen Adam dif- 
fered from his fallen posterity. 

There is a passage in Hennas, whose name is also re- 
corded in the New Testament, which clearly enough dis- 
covers his opinion upon the subject ; but after having ex- 
tracted it I have mislaid it, nor is it worth while to waste 
much time in seeking for it. Should it fall in my way, I 
shall give it in a note, In the meantime, I pass on to 

CLEMENT OF ROME, 

whose name also is honoured by being recorded in one of 
Paul's Epistles. 1 He wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians, 

1 Grotius disputes this, and thinks the Clement mentioned by Paul, Philip. 



348 



PARTICULAR, TESTIMONIES. 



for the purpose of healing the unhappy divisions, which, it 
appears, still continued to agitate the Church there, not- 
withstanding all that the Apostle Paul had written. In 
merely enforcing the necessity of peace, — which he does 
just in such a manner as we would expect from a man 
honourably mentioned by the Apostle, — he has little op- 
portunity of giving any opinion upon the subject of the 
present inquiry. But besides some passages in which his 
belief in the pre-existence of Christ is clearly, though in- 
cidentally shown, there is one passage from which we may 
very well understand what he thought of our Lord's hu- 
manity. It occurs in chap, ii., and is as follows : — 4 Ye 
were all of a lowly mind ; not puffed up ; subjeet rather 
than subjecting others ; rather giving than receiving ; con- 
tented with the provision of God, and carefully keeping 
his words ; having your hearts enlarged, and his sufferings 
were before your eyes.' 1 Here Clement distinctly men- 
tions the sufferings of God. But it was taught by all 
antiquity, and indeed must be admitted by every man, 
that the divinity in Christ could not suffer. It was the 
manhood alone that suffered, and yet what suffered is, by 
Clement, called God. He has also the clearest Scripture 
authority for this mode of expression ; for there we are 
told that the blood shed on the cross was the blood of 
God ; that he who was crucified was " the Lord of glory 
and he who was killed was u the Prince of life." Could 
Clement possibly conceive that when he spoke, in perfect 
accordance with Scripture precedent, of the sufferings of 
God, that God was also, not merely a real man, else he 

iv. 3, was a different person from Clement of Rome. 1 think he is wrong : 
but the thing is not worth disputing about. 

TOMraojaevot ^oaJKhov v\ v7rorotaaovTsg, f&otKhov ^ihouTeg q Ace^- 
^avovreg, rotg etyohioig rov &eov ol^h.<jv^svoi, tcou K^ouzxovTig 
rovg "hoyovg mvtov &7Ci(AeKag, sareQi/ la pivot mi rotg (r7r'Kciy%- 
voig, Koa rex, waQyifAOiToi ccvrov y\v 7tpo QtpQaTvfrau u/uav. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



U9 



could not have suffered at all, but a man suffering in fallen, 
sinful, wicked flesh ? It is so painful, so very revolting to 
the mind, even to place two such ideas in juxta-position, 
that we may well conclude that he had no conception of 
the sinfulness of our Lord's humanity when he spoke of the 
sufferings of God. 

As a farther illustration of the meaning of the passage, 
I may remark that Doctor Priestley is perfectly shocked 
with it, and, therefore, has recourse to his usual expedient 
on such occasions, calling its genuineness in question. It is 
very foolish to deny the genuineness of any passage in an 
ancient author just because we do not like it. And this 
is Priestley's only reason, excepting what just amounts to 
the same thing, that Junius thought that it should be not 
TrxSYipoflcx, uvlov but /AotSififfiofioi avlav, that is, instead of 
sense, it should be nonsense. There is not the slightest 
ground for supposing that Clement did not write the pass- 
age as it stands. But even if there were, even if it were 
certain that he never wrote these words, what is gained 
by the admission ? It cannot, at least, be denied that 
somebody wrote them, and thought that he was improving 
the Epistle by writing them ; the Epistle containing them 
has always been held in the highest estimation ; and they 
are incapable of being reconciled either to that system 
which denies the Divinity of Christ, or to that which 
maintains the sinfulness of his humanity. 

I may here introduce some extracts from the Apostolical 
Constitutions, which are usually joined with the Epistle of 
Clement. There is not the shadow of a reason for ascrib- 
ing the work to him ; but as the time when, and the author 
by whom, it was written cannot be ascertained, I may as 
well introduce it here as elsewhere. In one place where 
the writer represents the apostles as giving a regular de- 
tail of the circumstances attending the death of our Lord, 
he makes them say, — c All which things when the male- 
factors who were crucified with him saw, the one of them 



350 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



indeed blasphemed, as if Christ through weakness had been 
unable to help himself. But the other rebuked his igno- 
rance, and turning to the Lord, as one enlightened by him, 
and knowing who he was that suffered, he prayed that he 
would remember him in his kingdom after these things : 
and the Lord immediately granting him forgiveness for the 
past, carried him into Paradise to the enjoyment of mys- 
tic blessings.' 1 Here that it was through no want of 
power that Christ did not step down from the cross, and, 
consequently, that his death, at the moment when it took 
place, was perfectly voluntary, is taught in the plainest 
terms. 

In another place, they say, — c He was baptized and 
fasted ; not that he had need of any washing away of filth, 
or of fasting, or of purification, who was by nature pure 
and holy ; but that he might testify the truth of John, and 
furnish an example to us.' 2 They knew not that by bap- 
tism he was anointed as our Prophet. 

The Clementine Homilies, and the Recognitions, are 
still more palpable forgeries, and are full of heresies. Yet, 
upon this subject, if they were worth quoting, they would 
be found as far from admitting the sinfulness of our Lord's 
humanity as possible. 

x,ovQyor 6 fteu ccvrav dohavtyinffiUy aaocust uuQsvstav <iv- 
voifAtvov sotvra STrufAvveiit' 6 lis tovtcj psv Myvotc&v sKSTiftot* 
7TQog tou KvQtov argcitpsig, ag ecu (partgOsig vtt ocvtov, x,cci 
yvovg oarig 6 ttcigxow, yi^iqv fAVYifiYiv avrov ysvsaOoii sv ry fiec- 

GChilO, iig T# (AiTOt, TMVTto' 6 ?)£ Svdvg OCfAVYlOtC&V MVT6) TCdU 9T£0- 

yiyovvrav %Bt£iffotffi€»ag 9 sig ^cc^ex^sidou SHTYiyoiyS!/, ctwtfhetv- 
Garnet TCdv f6V0Ttx6)it ccyot>9ct)u. — Book v. chap. xiv. 

2 ESfl&tfTffftf*? Is xai suviarsvasv' ovk uvrog otzstk^VTraasag *) 
i/Yitrsiag X2 £t0iu ty 60 "* *1 ^otOet^treag 6 tyj (pvusi x.ct6c&%og x.»t 
ocyiog' c&KTC Ivct laocwY) d'hydsioiv 7T(>0(j(Aot,(nv(>wr}, *>&i 

y t uiv v7roy(>zx,(A(Aoy woiQawxirrrai. — Bookvii. chap. xxii. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



351 



Leaving them, therefore, I proceed to 

IGNATIUS, Bishop of Antioch. 

There is a tradition that he was the child whom our Savi- 
our took and set in the midst of his apostles, when he incul- 
cated the lesson of humility upon them. Whatever credit 
may be due to this tradition, we have at least no reason 
to question the truth of his own declaration, when he says, 
that he saw our Lord after his resurrection from the dead. 
The passage to which I refer occurs in the Epistle to the 
Smyrneans, chap. iii. I do not quote it, for it would lead 
me into a longer comment than I can here afford space for ; 
but one thing it proves most distinctly, that he conceived 
the body, which our Lord showed to his disciples after his 
resurrection, and desired them to handle that they might 
be convinced of its reality, was the very same unchanged 
body which had hung upon the cross and lay in the tomb. 
If he held the flesh of our Lord to be sinful during his life, 
it is certain that he held it to be equally so after his resur- 
rection. I think he was right in this respect ; but I avoid 
the discussion now, curious and important though it be, 
for the same reason that I avoided it in the first part of 
my work, that full justice cannot be done to it without a 
larger discussion than can be given to it in such a treatise. 

In the first chapter of his first Epistle, which is to the 
Ephesians, he speaks of 4 the blood of God,' saying, 'being 
followers of God, greatly animating yourselves by the 
blood of God.' 1 Here what is peculiarly an affection of 
the man is ascribed to God. But then he has the most 
direct Scripture authority for this mode of speaking. For 
it is a rule which can never be too carefully inculcated 
upon this subject, that whatever may be said of the flesh 
of Christ, may with perfect propriety be said of Christ. 



352 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



The early writers go farther, and apply to God whatever 
terms are applicable to the flesh of Christ. It was the 
flesh only that could bleed, yet that blood was the blood 
of God. It was the flesh alone that could die, yet the 
" Prince of life" died. It was the flesh alone that could be 
affixed to the cross, yet the u Lord of glory" was crucified. 
On the same ground, if it be Christian language to say 
that the flesh of Christ was fallen, sinful, wicked flesh, 
guilty and alienated from God, inclined to all forbidden 
things, and in bondage to the devil, the world, and the 
flesh ; then may all these things be with equal propriety 
said of Christ and of God. I have not hitherto insisted on 
carrying out this rule to its full extent, because I had no 
occasion so to do, and knew that the primitive writers 
would carry it out for me to that extent. Now, when we 
find Clement speaking of the sufferings of God, and Igna- 
tius of the blood of God, and recollect how clearly such 
language is authorised by Scripture precedent ; and when 
even they, who maintain the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, 
fully admit that what was born, and suffered, and died, 
was very God ; we must surely feel ourselves compelled to 
admit, that what was fallen, sinful, wicked, and impure, 
was also very God ; or to reject the application of such 
terms to Christ, or to a part of Christ, as the most direct 
and revolting blasphemy that any heresy has yet produced. 

A rule constantly observed by the inspired writers, and 
from them followed by every Catholic writer ; and a rule 
of the utmost importance in all theological speculations, is 
this, — If there be any one term, however innocent it may 
be, which may be properly applied to the humanity of 
Christ, but cannot be applied to Christ, or even to God, 
then that humanity was a person distinct from Christ and 
from God. 

The nineteenth chapter of the same Epistle commences 
thus, — 1 The prince of this world knew not of the virginity 
of Mary, nor of her child-bearing, nor of the death of the 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



353 



Lord; three mysteries to be preached, which were accom- 
plished by the power of God.' 1 It is necessary that I 
should give some account of a translation that deviates so 
widely from the letter. As to pvarvi^icx, xpavyyg, I have 
been guided simply by conjecture ; for, if it do not mean 
mysteries that are to be openly preached, I cannot discover 
any meaning that it has at all. In translating yigvxim feov, 
the power of God, I have gone upon better grounds. Co- 
telerius refers to the treatise ascribed to Dionysius the 
Areopagite, on the Divine Names, chapter ii. There the 
vKrv%i» of God is stated to be just the same as his ctipSey- 
or his KKivwia, his silence or his immoveableness ; and 
the application of these terms is simply intended to convey 
an idea of the perfect power of God. He goes not forth to 
any work, but, in the performance of the mightiest works, 
he speaks not, he moves not ; he simply wills, and they are 
done, iu 7](tvx^ foov. 2 Or, as there seems to be an intended 

1 K&t ihOL^S TOV CCgftOVTOS, TQlt MtOJ'JOg TOVTOU 7] TTSt^SUiCt 

Manias, koci 6ro>cerog otvrng, Sftoiag xoti 6 Savoirog rov Kvgwv, 
Tgtot /^varYj^toc IL^vyng, oltivcx, £u qavy,ici ®sov £Zo()a%@rt. 
Literally, three mysteries of a cry, which were accomplished in the silence of 
God. Tria mysteria clamor is, quae in silentio Dei patrata sunt, is the transla- 
tion of Cotelerius. 

2 The verb yjav^oc^oj occurs in Irenams, lib. in. cap. 21, in a sense, I con- 
ceive, similar to that which Dionysius states to belong to the noun. " For 
as he was man that he might be tempted, so he was the Word that he might 
be glorified, vjav^d^ourog {asi> rov hoyov , the Word being silent in his 
being tempted, crucified, and dying." Fevardentius says, that this teaches 
that the Divinity did not suffer. This, no doubt, it does very clearly teach ; 
but I am inclined to think it teaches more, namely, that, in his sufferings and 
death, the manhood was sustained by the Word, in whose person it subsisted, 
till he had endured all that the Law required, and was by the same power ear- 
ned into the dominions of death, — that as the mightiest works are performed 
s> vivvfcice, ©soy, even so the mighty works wrought on the cross, when 
Satan was cast down and death destroyed, were wrought tv yavxioz, rov 
Aoyov. When death met with one whom he could not conquer and lead a 
captive into his dominions, — one whom not only he could not carry captive into 
his dominions, but one who could enter into these dominions at his pleasure, 
— when he met one whom he could not slay, but who yet could die when 
he pleased, then did he learn that he had a master, that he held the keys of 



354 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



antithesis in the words ^otvyng and fovxta, the meaning 
may be, that these three mysteries are now to be openly 
preached, though God kept them secret from the prince of 
this world ; a sense which agrees well with the beginning 
of the sentence. 

But whatever sense may be attached to the latter part 
of the sentence, it is principally for the fact stated in the 
beginning of it, and in which there is no ambiguity, that 
I quote it, — namely, the ignorance of Satan with regard 
to the birth and character of Christ, and the effect of his 
death. This sentiment is taken up, I might almost say, 
by all the Fathers, and by some of them dwelt upon at 
much length, in explaining the doctrine of the Incarnation. 
They tell us that it was necessary that Christ should be 
born of a virgin; for had he been born of a married 
woman, there might have been some ground to suspect that 
he was descended from Adam by ordinary generation, and, 
consequently, must have been a fallen man. It was neces- 
sary, however, that that virgin should be espoused, that the 
Jews might not stone her, according to their law; and 
that she and her child might have a legal protector ; but, 
above all, that Satan might not know any thing of his 
birth. Their idea was, that had Satan known that Jesus 
Christ was the Incarnate Word, he never would have 
ventured to attack him at all : he would never have as- 
saulted him, and, therefore, never could have been defeat- 
ed ; he never would have plotted his death, and, therefore, 
death never could have been destroyed. One of the grand 
purposes, therefore, and with some of the Fathers ap- 
parently the one grand purpose of Christ being incarnate 
of an espoused virgin was, that the prince of this world 

his own kingdom only by a delegated power. And he who accomplished this 
mighty work was the "woman's seed," truly the Son of Man, hut he accom- 
plished it YloVfcM^ouTOS tov Koyov. Others may entertain a different 
view of the force of this word in Irenasus, and, therefore, though I have 
thought it worth while to note it in passing, I build nothing upon it. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 355 

might not know him, and thus might not be deterred from 
assailing him, and being overcome. This concealment 
from Satan of the person of Christ, by his being born of 
an espoused virgin, is here stated by Ignatius ; and the 
opinion is adopted by almost all the Fathers, and Ignatius 
referred to as its first promulgator by several of them. 
To make particular quotations on this subject would be 
endless, for no man can have entered even slightly into 
the Fathers without meeting the notion, that the flesh of 
Christ was just a bait to entice Satan to attack him. Thus 
Gregory Nyssen, treating the subject at some length, says, 
that Satan, 1 gaping after the bait of the flesh, was trans- 
fixed by the hook of the Divinity, and thus the dragon 
was drawn out with a hook, as Job says.' 1 And Basil, 
assigning the reasons why Christ was born of a married 
virgin, gives this as a reason assigned rtui rau -aoLhaiau 
by some one of the ancients, and referring, as nobody 
doubts, to this very passage of Ignatius, that her virginity 
might be concealed from the prince of this world ; and he 
adds, that Satan was a great observer of virgins, as he 
knew that a virgin was to have a son who was to destroy 
his kingdom ; but Mary being married, he ceased to watch 
her, fearing no harm from the offspring of any married 
woman. 2 One passage in which Bernard, the last of the 
Fathers, introduces this idea, is not only so very pertinent 
to the object which I have in view, but altogether so fine, 
that I am tempted to give it entire. 4 Therefore, whom 
he sought in the flesh, he loved in the spirit, and redeemed 
by his power. It is truly delightful to see the Maker of 
man become a man. But while he prudently selected the 
nature apart from its pollution, he also powerfully repelled 
death from the nature. In the assumption of flesh he 
condescended to me ; in avoiding its pollution, he attended 
to himself ; in the undertaking of death he satisfied the 

1 In his Catechetical Oration, chap. xxiv. 

2 Sermon xxv. etg rvji/ uyiocu rov Xg/orot/ yswnvtv. 



356 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



Father ; a delightful friend, a prudent counsellor, a power- 
ful helper. To him I can securely commit myself, who 
wishes to save me, who knows how to save me, who is 
able to save me. Whom he sought, him he called by his 
grace ; and will he cast out any that comes to him ? . Nay, 
I fear neither any force nor fraud, as if it could pluck me 
out of the hand of him who conquered Death, the conqueror 
of all ; and by a holier art, deluded the serpent, the seducer 
of all ; more wise than the latter, more powerful than the 
former ; He assumed, indeed, the reality of flesh, but the 
likeness of sin ; affording by the first a sweet consolation 
to the weak, and by the last concealing the deceptive 
snare from the devil.' 1 Eumnus, also, in his exposition of 
the Creed, enters largely into the same view, showing how, 
through the bait of the flesh, Satan was caught by the hook 
of -the Divinity, and the dragon was drawn out with a 
hook. But it would be endless to refer to all the Fathers 
who adopt this idea. And when we find the Fathers, 
from Ignatius, one of the first of them, down to Bernard, 
the last of them, teaching that one great reason why Christ 
put on the likeness of sinful flesh was, that Satan might 
be encouraged to make that attack upon him, as if he had 
been a fallen man, which was necessary to his own defeat, 
and which they conceive he never would have made, had 
he known that Jesus Christ was no fallen man, but the 

1 Itaque quos in carne qusesivit, dilexit in Spiritu, redemit in virtute. Ple- 
num prorsus omni suavitatis dulcedine, videre hominem hominis Conditorem. 
At dum naturam prudenter selegit a culpa, etiam potenter mortem propulit a 
natura. In carnis assumptione condescendit mini ; in culpse vitatione consulit 
sibi ; in mortis susceptione satisfecit Patri ; amicus dulcis, consiliarius pru- 
dens, adjutor fortis. Huic securus me credo, qui salvare me velit, noverit, pos- 
sit. Quern qua^sivit nunc et vocavit per gratiam suam, numquid venientem 
ejiciet foras ? Sed nec vim nec fraudem metuo profecto ullam, quod me videli- 
cet de manu ejus possit eruere, qui et vincentem omnia vicit mortem, et se- 
ductorem universitatis serpentem arte utique sanctiore delusit, isto pruden- 
tior, ilia potentior. Carnis quidem assumit veritatem, sed peccati similitudi- 
nem, dulcem prorsus in ilia exhibens consolationem infirmo, et in hac pru- 
denter abscondens laqueum deceptionis diabolo.— Supra Cantica. Sermo 20. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



357 



Incarnate Word ; can we believe that they, at the same 
time, held the doctrine that he was really a fallen sinful 
man, whom Satan might assail with a reasonable prospect 
of prevailing over him ; since, being liable to temptation, 
he must have been liable to sin, without which liability 
temptation is declared to be no temptation ? I could just as 
easily believe that no such writers as the Fathers ever 
existed. 

The epistles of Ignatius abound in passages against the 
Docetae, who denied the reality of our Lord's body ; and 
in every one of which he not only might have been ex- 
pected to maintain the sinfulness of his flesh, as earnestly 
and emphatically as that doctrine is inculcated now, 
when there is so much less reason for insisting upon it ; 
but, had he believed the doctrine, must of necessity have 
done so. There is no possibility of acquitting him of the 
charge of great ignorance of the doctrines which he had 
learned from the lips of the Apostles themselves, nay, even 
from the lips of Christ himself, or of grievous unfaithful- 
ness in neglecting to inculcate so important a doctrine as 
the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh is represented to be, 
when writing in circumstances that so imperiously requir- 
ed it to be brought forward in the most distinct and pro- 
minent manner. Still less can he be excused for teaching 
the very contrary, and being the first to promulgate an 
error upon the Incarnation, which misled all that followed 
him, down even to the last of the Fathers, nay, down to 
the present day. I had marked a number of other por- 
tions for extraction, but I find that I cannot produce them 
without allowing to him a very disproportionate space. I 
shall, therefore, merely notice a mistake that occurs in the 
vetus interpretatio of his interpolated Epistle to the Trallians, 
chap. x. The passage is — Crucifixus est vere, voluntarie 
complacens, nonphantastice. This is the translation of e$av- 
go&Yi et'XYiSas, ov ooxyiosi, ov (pcuflccuta. It is clear that the 
ancient translator, instead of ov loxwei, he died not in ap- 
pearance only, had read svloxwu, he died of his own good 



358 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



pleasure. Now, admitting him to have been mistaken, as 
he probably was, yet he must have detected his mistake at 
once', if the reading which he adopted conveyed a sense, 
not merely new to the Church, but grossly heretical. But 
the mistake passed without detection, because, if Ignatius 
teaches not that doctrine in this place, — which, indeed, is 
none of his writing, — he teaches it clearly enough else- 
where. Of 

POLYCARP, 

the disciple of the Apostle John, and the last of the 
apostolical Fathers, we have left only one short Epistle to 
the Philippians. It is worthy of its venerable author, but 
I observe nothing in it particularly bearing upon the sub- 
ject. I pass on, therefore, to his contemporary, 

JUSTIN MARTYR, 

who flourished about the middle of the second century, 
and suffered martyrdom in the year 166. I need not make 
many extracts from him in order to show what were his 
opinions as to the person of Christ, as he has the honour 
of being reproached by the Socinians as the first of the 
Fathers who taught the divinity of our Lord. In his Se- 
cond Apology, page 76, he understands the text, " The 
government shall be upon his shoulders," as referring to 
the cross which our Saviour carried upon his shoulders. 
Barnabas had done the same before him, as others of the 
Fathers did after him ; for they imagined not that he was 
overcome on the cross, but that there he reigned. 

In his dialogue with Trypho the Jew he quotes the text, 
" And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, 
and a Branch shall grow out of his roots ; and the Spirit 
of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and 
understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit 
of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord ; and shall make 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 359 

him of quick understanding in the fear of the Lord." 1 
Trypho admits that this text refers to the Messiah, and 
immediately proceeds to draw from it an objection against 
the Divinity of Christ, in this manner : — 4 You say that he 
pre-existed as God ; and you say that, according to the 
counsel of God, he was incarnated, and born as man of a 
virgin. How can his pre-existence be proved, who is filled 
with the powers of the Holy Spirit which the Word enu- 
merates by Isaiah, as one who stands in need of them V 
Now, let any one who believes that our Lord took fallen 
sinful flesh, just consider with himself for one moment how 
he would answer this objection. He will find that his 
answer is perfectly ready. He would reply at once that 
Christ really did stand in need of these powers of the 
Holy Spirit ; that having in his Incarnation taken fallen 
sinful flesh, he had in him all the evil propensities of fallen 
man, and being continually inclined to all forbidden things, 
he required the constant control of the Holy Spirit, with- 
out which he would have broken forth into actual crime. 
Had Justin held this doctrine he could have given no other 
answer. He must have admitted at once that Christ did 
need those powers. Yet, instead of making this admission, 
he gives an answer which will meet with the approbation 
of neither those who admit, nor of those who deny that 
tenet. His reply is,— c You have put this question with 
great acuteness and skill ; for there really does seem to 
be some ground of doubt here. But that you may under- 
stand this, attend to what I say. The Word does not say 
that the powers of the Spirit, which are mentioned, came 
upon him as if he stood in need of them ; but that they 
were to rest upon, that is, to have their termination in 
him, so that there should be no more prophets among 
your people, according to the ancient manner ; and this 
you may see with your own eyes, for after him no prophet 



i Isaiah xi. 1. 



360 



PARTICULAE TESTIMONIES. 



liath arisen among you.' 1 Now, with such an answer to 
such an objection before our eyes, is it in any man's power 
to believe that Justin held the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
our Lord's humanity ? held that Christ needed regenera- 
tion, and all the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, just as much 
as we do? It is perfectly clear that Justin's views upon 
the subject were very vague and unsatisfactory ; but it is 
no less clear that they were directly opposed to the tenet 
of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh. 

He is quite scandalized at the idea that Christ was 
made a curse for us ; and labours to show that as God 
was blameless, though he ordered Moses to make a brazen 
serpent, the very last thing that it might have been expect- 
ed that a God who had forbidden all images would have 
ordered, 4 even so though a curse be denounced in the law 
against men that are crucified, that curse does not lie 
against the Christ of God.' 2 Did this writer, who, in de- 

1 . Kcci (diov olvtou irQovnufi'xouToi Xsyag, xc&e 

Kcirot tyiu fiovhYii/ tov ®sov aet^x,07rotYj3syret olvtov \zyug "hia 
rr,g ttolq&svov yiyevvjaQoLi a,yQ()toz5ov' nag ^vuoltoli oc7ro^st^n- 
voli 7r^ov7roc^x 0)u > oaTig <)ia, tcou ^woL/asai/ tov Tfvsv&toiTOg tov 
e&yiov ol$ x,mtmqi&/u2i 6 \oyog W Hffociov, TcTiviQovrotif cdg sv- 

iiSYjg TOVTCdU V7r0C^X au > %>M>y6> WXZXQlVCtfiZV, VOVyi^iddTOC (AZV 

scat GVVYtTUToiTct, Yi(>6)Ti4Gctg' cLkYiQag yctQ ctTiro^Yi^ce, })0X,Zl SIVOll' 
«AX' iucc i^Yig koli tov tts^i TOVTuv Koyov, olkovs oju Keyu, 
TocvToig Totg x,&TY}(3i0(iY)(6£i/oig tov irvivpoLTOg ^vuotf^eig, ov% ug 
si/lieovg olvtov TOVTCdu ovTog, (pv)<7iv 6 7\oyog vff%\v\hvQivoLi szs 

OLVTOV, COO? OJg STT ZXHVOV OLVOLtfOLVGlV (AiKhOVGtoV ftOliHI&CAl, 
TOVTtGTtV) Z7T OLVTOV TTt^Oig TCOlilG^OLt TOV (l/lXiTl BU T6) ySUSi 
VfiUV KOLTOL TO KOlhOLlOV iOog 7t^0(pY\TOLg ySVYlffSffOoLt* OTCSQ KOLl 
Q^Sl ihilV iGTl' (LiT ZKZIVOV yOLQ OvliZig O'hOUg 7T(>0(pYITYjg KOLQ V(CIU 

yeyevY)Ton. — Page 314. Edition of Paris, 1636. 

2 OdUTO ()YJ 7L0LI 2V TO V0(LCd KOLTOLQOL KilTOLl KOLTOL 

tcov gtolv^ovllsucov ocyQQaTrav, ovx, sti %e tloli koltol tov X^/<r- 
tov tov (diov koltglqol xziTUi. — Page 322. 



PARTICULAH TESTIMONIES. 



361 



fiance of the direct assertion of the apostle, denied that 
Christ was made a curse for us, yet believe that he actually 
took fallen sinful flesh which had been accursed in the 
loins of our first parents ? 
The next author who demands our attention is 



IBJEK/EUS, 

who was ordained bishop of Lyons some time before the 
year 180, and suffered martyrdom in the second or third 
year of the third century. He has left us one of the most 
valuable works of antiquity, written against all the heresies 
of the time; the greater part of which, however, exists only 
in a Latin translation, which, I should conjecture from the 
style, was made by some person who was a native of 
Greece, as Irenaeus himself was. He was a disciple of 
Polycarp, who was ordained bishop of Smyrna by the 
Apostle John. We have already seen him arguing against 
the Gnostics, that there can be nothing in flesh and blood 
unfit for the kingdom of heaven ; and arguing thus, upon 
this very ground that the Apostle Paul applies the terms 
flesh and blood to Christ himself. This is a proof, as satis- 
factory as can be desired, that he utterly denied the doc- 
trine that even the flesh of Christ himself was fallen sinful 
flesh. As far, therefore, as the proof of this point is con- 
cerned, any thing farther might be unnecessary. But he 
entertains a view upon the subject so singular, though not 
quite peculiar to himself, that I should be doing injustice 
to the subject were I to pass it unnoticed. His view is, 
that Adam was made the image of God indeed, but not the 
perfect image of him. He was rather the reflected image, the 
image of that humanity of our Lord, which was the only per- 
fect human image of God that ever existed. His constant 
doctrine is, that man never was truly the image of God till 
the Incarnation. God could have made man perfectly so at 
first ; but man, being yet in his infancy, was not fit for this 

Q 



362 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



distinction. But in Christ man became perfectly the image 
of God. In proof of this, I would refer particularly to Lib. 
iv. Cap. 75 and 76. I quote the following from Lib. v. 
Cap. 16 ; because, though it does not enter so particularly 
into the subject, it is sufficiently distinct, and is much 
shorter : — ' In past times it was said, indeed, that man was 
made in the image of God ; but that was not shown. For 
as yet the Word was invisible, after whose image man 
had been made. On this account, also, he easily lost the 
likeness. But when the Word of God was made flesh, he 
established both : for he both showed the true image, he 
himself becoming what his image was ; and restored the 
likeness confirming it, making man like the invisible Father 
by the visible Word. And the Lord not only manifested 
both the Father and himself by the things aforesaid, but 
also, by his passion itself, he dissolved the disobedience 
in a tree, by obedience unto death upon a tree.' 1 Here 
the inferiority even of unfallen Adam to the manhood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ is distinctly stated. It was not un- 
til the Incarnation of the Word that a perfect human image 
of God was seen ; and it was not till then that that image 
was placed beyond the possibility of falling. The reason 
of this inferiority he treats of in the chapters to which I 
have referred, and employs the text, u I have fed you with 
milk, and not with strong meat," to show that Adam, even 
in his unfallen state, was not capable of being the true and 
perfect image of God, — an image which was never seen till 
the Word was made flesh. 

Instead, however, of making an extract from either of 
these chapters, I prefer quoting a passage from Theophilus, 
who was ordained bishop of Antioch in the year 170, a 

1 In prseteritis enim temporibus, dicebatur quidem secundum imaginem 
Dei factum esse hominem, non autem ostendebatur. Adhuc enim invisibile 
erat Verbum, cujus secundum imaginem homo factus fuerat. Propter hoc 
autem et similitudinem facile amisit. Quando autem caro Verbum Dei 
factum est, utraque confirmavit : et imaginem ostendit veram, ipse hoc fiens, 
quod erat imago ejus ; et similitudinem firmans restituit, consimilem faciens 
hominem invisibili Patri per visibile Verbum. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



363 



writer who was the first that made use of the word 
' Trinity.' Theophilus and Irenaeus wrote nearly at the 
same time, but lived at such a distance from each other, 
that it is not probable that the one could borrow from 
the other; yet he who reads the chapters in Irenaeus, 
to which I have referred, will probably be inclined to 
think, that in proving the inferiority of unfallen Adam to 
the humanity of Christ, he had before him the following 
passage from Theophilus : — c The tree of knowledge was 
good, and its fruit was good. For the tree bore not, as 
some imagine, any thing noxious or deadly ; but disobe- 
dience was the cause of death. For there was nothing in 
the fruit save knowledge alone. But knowledge is good, if 
one knows how to use it properly. But Adam was at that 
time an infant, and was, therefore, unable to receive know- 
ledge in a worthy manner. For even now, when a child 
is born, he is not immediately able to eat bread, but is first 
nourished with milk, and at a more advanced age proceeds 
to more solid food : and so also it was with Adam.' 1 Now, 
Irenaeus, in writing the chapters referred to, either had 
seen this language, or the sentiment was so common in the 
Church at the time, that two different persons, the one 
writing at Antioch in the East, and the other writing at 
Lyons in the West, express the same opinion, and nearly in 
the same words. Priestley was right. It would be easier 
by far to prove that these writers were Gnostics, and denied 
the flesh of Christ altogether, than to prove that they 
held his flesh to be fallen and sinful. There is no writer 
whom I would more strongly recommend to the theological 
student upon the subject of the Incarnation than Irenaeus. 

1 TV) OVdYl qhlKlCX, 6 Ao^W- £Tl VY}7ri0g YIV, B/O 0V7T&) Tj^V- 

vmto tyiv yumiv tcclt a^ioiu ^cd^iiv, Koct y&(> uvu, i7?a,y ye- 
vyiDyi ftxibiov, ovx, nhvi ^vvocroci ugrov eaQiziv, c&T^hot, tt^tou yct- 
"hctKTt a vcitqzQ erect, stthtcc Kara H goaQoio tu ryg vfhiKicig, x,ott 
$7Ti tviv eregsoiv Tgo(pY}v s^sra/. ' Qvrag ocv sysyovet xoutcj 
A^ocfl. — To Autolycus, Book ii. 



364 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



Iii the statement of his views as to the superiority of our 
Lord's manhood to that of unfallen Adam, he no doubt does 
occasionally go somewhat farther than is perfectly warrant- 
able ; as when he speaks of the mixture of the humanity 
and divinity in Christ ; a mode of speaking that he re- 
peatedly employs, even though writing against the Gnos- 
tics. But then it must be remembered that this is a mode 
of speaking perfectly familiar with the Fathers until the 
rise of the Eutychian heresy showed its danger. And in 
the same way he uses language which might, if rigidly in- 
terpreted, be urged in favour of the opposite heresy of Nes- 
torius. Thus, in book iii. chap. 18, we have the follow- 
ing language : — 4 Filius Dei hominis films factus, ut per 
eum adoptionem percipiamus, portante liomine, et capiente, 
et complectente Filium Dei. 1 Now, though this language 
be capable of a sound sense, yet it is only capable of that 
sense, while it naturally conveys an idea directly Nesto- 
rian ; and in truth I doubt not that could he at that time 
have had any idea of the Nestorian heresy, he would either 
have avoided the expression altogether, or would have 
written it thus : — portante Filio Dei, et capiente, et complec- 
tente liominem. Yet I may remark, that in the interpolated 
epistles of Ignatius, epistle to the Trallians, chap, x., we 
meet a similar phraseology : — A^vfrug lotvw eysvuwz Magiot 
(rap,*, 6zov zvoikov exov, c Mary truly bore a body having 
God dwelling in it.' Every one sees that this language is 
most objectionable, and at a later period would not have 
been tolerated : but at the same time every intelligent 
reader sees clearly that the writer had no intention to teach 
the doctrine which might be fairly inferred from it. We 
must allow great latitude to those who wrote before heresies 
rising in the Church had called for the interference of gene- 
ral Councils ; and the candid reader will at once admit 
that while they use language that might be urged in favour 
of Nest onanism, and far more frequently language that 
might be urged in favour of Eutychianism, they had not the 
most distant intention of teaching either the one or the 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



365 



other of these heresies. The best proof of this is, that 
these two opposite modes of expression may commonly be 
found in the same writer. In general, the language of 
Irenasus is as correct as his views are judicious. How far 
he was right in maintaining that our Lord, as to his huma- 
nity, was superior to unf alien Adam, I shall not stop to in- 
quire. It is clear as day that he did not believe that our 
Lord's humanity was fallen, sinful, and impure. 
The next author who demands our attention is 

CLEMENT, 

a presbyter and catechist in the Church of Alexandria. 
When he was born is not known ; but he died in the 
year 220. His views as to our Saviour's humanity were 
by no means of a sound description. I must, however, 
produce a specimen of them, in order to show how very 
far he was from thinking that humanity to be sinful. In 
one place he writes thus, — 4 Our paedagogue, O ye child- 
ren, is like to God the Father whose Son he is, impec- 
cable, irreprehensible, and in his soul impassible. He is 
unpolluted God in the figure of man, performing his 
Father's will ; God the AYord, who is in the Father, and 
at the right hand of the Father, and together with the 
figure, — of a man namely, — God. He is to us the spot- 
less image ; and with all our power must we labour to 
make our souls like to him. But he was perfectly free 
from all human passions. For this reason he alone is 
Judge, for he alone is impeccable.' 1 

1 'lLotzev 6 Uoa^ayayog 9jf&6>», 0) Trailisg vpstg, tcj Hoc- 
Tgt oiVTOvrco 0£<a, oviri^ zgtiu vtog ecvctfAetQTYiroSt ccvzyrhSTrTo:, 

KOtt CCTTOt&Yig TY} ^VfcYl. Qsog VJ C6U^C07T0V (T%Ylf60lTi M%Q01I/T0C, 

TrotTgtxa SeKyfAoiTi 'hic&xovog, hoyog Qsog, 6 red Hccr^i, 6 sx, 
(ie^icjv tov Tlccrgog, cvu xai rco trftYiftotTt Qsog. Ovrog qptu 
HKCdv q ocx,Y}7iidarog' rovra ttxuti afavsi 7r€ioocrsoi/ efzoftotovit 

TV}V \f/V%YlV. AAA' 0 [AZV, Qf7roXVTQ$ Sig TO KOLVTihtg OLl/QowZl- 



366 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



In the same book, chap. vii. he speaks of the " holy 
God Jesus," 6 ay to$ 0sog lyaovg. But the following pass- 
age will effectually put an end to all doubts as to what he 
thought of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh ; and it is to 
be regretted that so impious a doctrine being urged upon 
the world, on this among other grounds, that all the 
Fathers teach it, renders necessary the production of 
passages, which it would be better by far to leave in the 
original where but few eyes could see them. After ob- 
serving that the true Gnostic, that is, the Christian, (for 
while the Gnostics boasted loudly of their knowledge, and 
took their very name, from the word yvaoig, Clement 
maintains that the Christian alone was the real Gnos- 
tic,) had no other affections than those which are neces- 
sary for the preservation of life, such as hunger, thirst, 
and the like, he adds, — L But as to the body of our Sa- 
viour, it would be ridiculous to suppose that, as a body, 
it required those things which are necessary for the pre- 
servation of life. He ate, not on account of his body, 
which was sustained by his holy power, but lest those 
who were conversant with him should imagine, as some 
afterwards did, that he was a man only in appearance. 
But he was totally exempted from all passion, and could 
experience no emotion whether of pleasure or of pain.' 1 
This is one of the very passages produced by Priestley for 
the purpose of proving that even as to the humanity of 

V6)V KtoQaV* TOVTO) yM(> X,OCl {X0V0$ TC^tTYig, OTl OlVM/&X(>- 

TtiTOg povog* — Pcedagogue, Book i. chap. ii. See note M. Appendix. 

1 AAA' SKI TOV 16)TY\(>0$ TO (T6Jf60l>, MTTOUTSIU Cdg aCd^CC 

rag ocvciyx,cx,ioig vftZ(>io-iot,g zig liioiftovYiv, ytkotg oiv sty s(potysv 

ycl(> OV B/£5& TO GO/MM, ^VVCt^Sl GVVS%0f6SV0V uyioC oCh'h 0)g {AYl 

rovg avuovTctg OLKhug m^i otvrov Qqovuv vKzioihftof aaftiQ 

Mfiihil UGTZQVV ^07t7\ait TtVtg t&VTOV TTiCpOtve^aO'dotl V7tiK(X&0V. 

ecvrog X7re&^et7tihag <Z7raGYig yiv, stg 6v ovhzu Troc^sia^vereti ill- 
i/Yipoc ir&ftnTtKOV, ovrs v$ovy\, ovre TiVWYi. — Stromata, Book vi. chap, 
ix. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



367 



our Lord, the Fathers held an opinion not materially dif- 
fering from that of the Gnostics. Utterly indefensible as 
is the position of Priestley, it must be admitted that such 
language as this is equally indefensible, and enabled him 
to give but too plausible a colour to his assertion. No 
man in the present age would, I suppose, make use of 
such language as this ; yet the Church in the present age 
is charged with denying the flesh of Christ ; while at the 
same time it is asserted that all the Fathers not only 
maintained the reality of that flesh, but believed it to be 
fallen sinful flesh ! 

MARCUS MIXUTIUS FELIX, 

a Roman lawyer, wrote a very elegant defence of Chris- 
tianity, about the beginning of the third century. He 
has had no occasion to enter upon the question of our 
Lord's humanity ; but the following passing remark shows 
clearly enough his opinion upon the subject. It occurs a 
few pages from the end : — ' Nam quod religioni nostra ho- 
minem noxium, et crucem ejus adscribitis, longe de vicinia 
veritatis erratis, qui puiatis Deum credi, aut meruisse 
noxium, aut potuisse terrenum : nee tile miserabilis, cujus in 
homine mortali spes omnis innititur ; totum enim ejus aiui- 
lium cum extincto homine jinitur.'' 

TERTULLIAX 

was a presbyter in the Church of Carthage. He turned 
Montanist in 207, and died about 220. Having already 
given one testimony from him, as distinct as language can 
express, against the sinfulness of Christ's flesh, I shall 
content myself here with giving another short extract, in 
which he expressly guards against that tenet. He has 
written a treatise expressly on the flesh of Christ, which 
is truly excellent. The sixteenth chapter of that treatise 
he devotes to the defence of the Church against the re- 



368 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



proach of believing the flesh of Christ to be sinful, as the 
Gnostics charged the Catholics with doing. The title 
given to the chapter by Lacerda is — Responsio pro Catho- 
licism quod euro vera Christi peccatrix non fuerit; that is, 
1 An answer for the Catholics, that the true flesh of Christ 
was not sinful.' The whole chapter is as direct to the 
purpose as possible. I shall produce merely the end of it. 
After observing that it would have been no great matter 
if Christ had removed the blot of sin in better flesh, and 
of another, that is not of a sinful nature, he proceeds as 
follows : — 1 Then, you will say, if he put on our flesh, the 
flesh of Christ was sinful. Do not strain the simple 
meaning ; in putting on our flesh, he made it his own ; 
making it his own, he made it not sinful. Finally, let 
those who think that Christ had not our flesh, because he 
came not by ordinary generation, remember that Adam 
himself did not receive this flesh by ordinary generation. 
As earth was changed into this flesh without ordinary 
generation, even so the Word of God was able, without 
ordinary generation, to pass into the matter of the same 
flesh,' i Of 

HLPPOLYTUS 

little is known. He was a bishop, but whether of Ostia 
in Italy, or of some city in Arabia, is uncertain ; — most 
probably the latter. He suffered martyrdom in the year 
230. As I have no other acquaintance with the writings 
of this author than what is derived from a very slight in- 
spection, while looking for passages bearing upon the pre- 

1 Ergo, inquis, si nostram induit, peccatrix fuit caro Christi. Noli eon- 
stringere explicaTbilem sensum ; nostram enim induens, suam fecit ; suam 
faciens, non peccatricem earn fecit. Ceterum, (quod ad omnes dictum sit, 
qui ideo non putant carnem nostram in Christo fuisse, quia non fuit ex viri 
semine) recordentur Adam ipsum in hanc carnem, non ex semine viri fac- 
tum. Sicut terra conversa est in hanc carnem sine viri semine, ita et Dei 
Verbum potuit sine coagulo in ejusdem carnis transire materiam. — Be Carm 
Christi, cap. xvi. Edition of Priorius after Rigaltius. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



369 



sent question, I have thought it best to lay aside the pass- 
ages which I had extracted from him, and to substitute 
others taken from those fragments of his works which are 
preserved by Theodoret. The following is from his Ser- 
mon on the text — u The Lord is my shepherd." — 4 And 
the Saviour himself was an ark of wood that would not 
rot ; for by it his undecaying and incorruptible tabernacle 
was signified, which produced no corruption of sin. For 
he who sins, confesses, and says, 4 My wounds stink and 
are corrupt, because of my foolishness ; ' but the Lord was 
impeccable, of wood that would not rot, according to his 
manhood, that is, of the Virgin and the Holy Ghost, over- 
laid within and without as with the most pure gold of 
God the Word.' 1 The following is from his Sermon on 
the two robbers : — 4 And the body being dead after a 
human manner, has yet a great power of life in it ; for 
things which flow not from dead bodies flowed from it, 
blood and water, that we might know how far the power 
dwelling in the body prevails to life ; so that it might ap- 
pear to be unlike other dead bodies, and able to pour out 
the causes of life to us.' 2 This passage of Hippolytus has 

1 KoCl X,&G)T0g ()£ £X, %V7i6)!S MGY17TTG)V MVTOg YjV 6 *26)TY1()' ro 

yetQ olgyiktov ocvrov o^hicc(p^o^ou GXYjuog roivrvj KMTYiyye'AtTo, 

TO fAT/lhifAtCtV OtfAOlQrYlfAOLrOS 0~Yj7Tsho!JOC (pUGMV. O ytZQ dt/X,<X,(>- 

TYi<jccg, xxt ^opoKoyovfizvog (pwi, 'tt^ogco^yigocu x,ot,t £G0t,7rr,GUv 
6t fAoTw'Xig pov M7T0 tt^ogojttov ring ccCp^OGWYtg /uov. '0^£ Kv- 

QtOg CCVOlfttZQTYlTOg Y\V, SX, T6J1S CCGYl l 7TTCt)V £>Vh6)!S TO XOlT av Q ^catt ov ^ 
TOVTiGTIV i'A TV\g 7fCl()QzV0V XCtl TOV OZ.yiOV 7T'J£V \UMT0g, £G6d9iV>COt,l 

i^aQiv rov Tioyov rov Ssov oiov xocdagaTMro) ^VGto 7r£<pix.sxa- 
TiVfAftevog. — Eranistes of Theodoret, Dialogue i. p. 36. 

2 K.oti vex,()ov rs ov ro gco^cc xcctoz, tou ot.vQ()0)'7?ivov t^ottou, 
f^iyoLhYiu i^a £covig ev avro) ^vi/oc/^iu' a, yotq ov n^o-fcznou tc*>p 
viK(>av GtopaTOdv, TavTcx, g| ccvtov 7rQoe%e&vi, aipa, re x,xi vhao' 

h etOStYlftSI* '/{hi-AOU 7} X,0ZTMGX,Y}V6)Ga.G0l ^VUCAf^ig £U TO) G6)/X,01T{ 
7T%pg £&)YIV lvi/0i7C&i f d)g flYlTS e&VTO TQig #AA0/£ O^OIOV (pKiVBG- 

Q 2 



370 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



been made use of to substantiate a charge of unsoundness 
against the Fathers. I have too slight an acquaintance 
with the general sentiments of Hippolytus to be able to 
undertake his defence; but I have no doubt whatever 
that he was perfectly sound. It is quite clear, however, 
from this language, that if he erred at all with regard to 
our Lord's humanity, his error lay in a direction exactly 
opposite to that of those who maintain the sinfulness of 
that humanity. If he deviated from orthodoxy at all, it 
is clear that the deviation was in the direction, not of So- 
cinianism, but of Gnosticism ; — a remark that may be 
made with regard to all the primitive writers. We now 
come to 

ORIGEN, 

who, like his master Clement, was a catechist and pres- 
byter in the Church of Alexandria. He was born about 
the year 185, and died in 252. His opinions on several 
points were peculiar to himself. With regard to the 
Word and the Holy Ghost these opinions were not, in my 
opinion, quite so bad as they have been sometimes repre- 
sented. They were, however, too bad to admit of any 
satisfactory defence. But with regard to the humanity of 
our Lord, it may naturally be expected that his views 
would partake somewhat of the character of those of his 
master Clement, who, as we have seen, furnished Priest- 
ley with one of his strongest authorities for accusing the 
primitive Church of Gnosticism. The following passage 
will show, that with regard to the humanity of our Lord, 
he copied Clement but too closely. Referring to Celsus, 
one of whose objections as to the body of our Lord he was 
remarking upon, he says : — c 4 But, 5 he saith, 1 neither 
does the body of God eat such food as you do just as if he 

Sect vsxqov, Tjfciu Q£ ret fang c&itim tt^o^iu IivvomjQgii. — Eraniste$ 
of Theodoret, Dialogue iii. p. 156. 



PARTIC ULAR TE STIMONIES . 



371 



could prove from the gospel that he did eat, or that he ate 
such food as we do. But be it so that he did eat the 
passover with his disciples, and that he did not merely 
say, " with desire have I desired to eat this passover with 
you," but that he actually did eat ; let him say also that 
he drank at Jacob's well ; what has that to do with what 
we have said of his body ? It clearly appears that after 
his resurrection he ate fish, for we believe that he took a. 
body, being born of woman.' 1 This passage is perfectly 
snfficient to show how deeply Origen was imbued with 
the spirit of his master upon this subject ; and how far he 
was from thinking the flesh of Christ to be fallen sinful 
flesh. Many extracts from the same justly- celebrated 
treatise, of a similar character, it would be easy to pro- 
duce. One more I must give. Referring to the often-re- 
peated objection of Celsus, that Christians thought it a 
pious thing to believe that Christ, consisting of a mortal 
body, was God, he says : — 4 But let these accusers know, 
that this Jesus, whom from the beginning we believe to be 
God, and the Son of God, is the very Word, and the very 
truth, and the very wisdom ; and as to his mortal body, 
and the human soul that was in it, we say that not only 
by the fellowship, but also by the union and mixture of 
the Word, it received all that is great ; and by a partici- 
pation of his Divinity became God.' 2 

1 Agyg/ lis " on ov^s Totccvrcc a its iron uco^cc 0sot/ 5 oig 

CiVTOV TTXQCCVYlGCfil CC7T0 T60V gVOtyysTUKay yQKftfAOtTCJU (T{T0V/ttS~ 
UOUy KSCi 7T0i0C G ITOV 'ffiS'JOV '. AAA' SGT&), TlSySTO) UVTCOV (SshQOCTKSVUi 
/LCSTOCTO!/ (AudYlTaUTO 7TCX,<7%Ct, m OV fCOVOU il7T0UT0t> TO. " ~RksQv{61C£ 
S7TS()vf6YI(rotTOVTOTOZSCl(r%Ol (pCC/StU fiiS VftCOv" OC^.CC X,Cil fieQgCt)- 

xotcc. Asysro) 0° uvrou x,&i liL-^/YiaccvTot, 7roz(>(x, tyi Trriyn rov 

IcCXaQ 7rS7T6)KS!/0li, Tl TOVTO TT^Og TCC 7TS^l TOV G6) t UX,?0g CCVTO'J 

v<p qpau heyopsuce, ; Goitpag Is (pc&ivzrai t%Qvog fceroc ryju xi/cc- 
GTCtuiu (Ssv^axttog. — Against Celsus, Book i. near the end, p. 54 of Spen- 
cer's edition. He alludes to what he had stated in a previous part of the 
same book, see particularly pp. 26 and 29. 

2 Opcog os KJTtov&y (^ztcogci'j) oi syx&hovyrsg, on 6u fisv 



372 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



These passages are perfectly sufficient to show that 
Priestley might have quoted Origen also, in order to give a 
colour to the charge of Gnosticism which he brings against 
the Fathers. I have at present no opportunity of con- 
sulting his work Kegt otgxav, but there is a collection of 
passages bearing on the Incarnation, selected from that 
work, and translated by Euffinus, from which I may take 
a few sentences. Speaking of the human soul of Christ, 
he says : — 4 It was anointed with the oil of gladness then, 
when by an immaculate federation, it was united to the 
Word of God ; and by this it alone, of all human souls, 
was ineapable of sin, because it was well and fully capable 
of receiving the Son of God ; and, therefore, it is one with 
him, and receives his names, and is called Jesus Christ, 
by whom all things were made.' And he adds, that he 
conceives that it is of this soul that the Apostle says, 
u Your life is hid with Christ in God." Again, he re- 
marks, that as a mass of iron, placed in a furnace, is said 
to be made fire, and appears so to the eye, and if any one 
try to touch or handle it, he will feel the force not of iron, 
but of fire ; 4 in the same manner also that soul which, as 
iron in fire, is always placed in the Word, in the wisdom, 
in God ; all that it does, all that it feels, all that it thinks, 
is God. And, therefore, it cannot be said to be conver- 
tible or mutable, but, unceasingly ignited by its union with 
the Word of God, will possess immutability.' This, 
as far as I know, is the first appearance of the simile 
drawn from the union of iron and fire, which was after- 
wards often used by the Fathers, and which is better 

ourog 6 avroKoyog sari, xoci vi ecvrotraCpiot, kui vj avroihYiQiia.' 

TO OS ^UYITOV UVTOV (TUfAM, X,0Cl TYIV &u6 (tOW IUYIU ZV OCVTO) -tywfcflVj. 
TYl 7tQ0g SsCSWO OV f^Ol/OU KOIUCJUIOC, ctKkoC KCll ZVUGSl XCtl UVOt- 

xgccaet, to, peyitTTM (pdftsit KfiQvii'hYityiUMi, K&i rng exetvov £te/- 
oTYirog Kt>cotv6dVYix,OTQi ng 0bou fteToiQsQYixei/cti, — Against Celsus, 
Book Hi. p. 135. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



373 



known in modern times as the illustration which Luther 
used in support of his doctrine of consubstantiation. These 
extracts abundantly prove, that whatever errors Origen 
held, the sinfulness of our Saviour's humanity was none of 
them. I regret to add, that extracts might be made from 
his writings in support of some of the most irrational 
errors of the present day. Happily, that they were coun- 
tenanced by Origen is not a circumstance that will tend 
much to promote them. From Origen we pass to 

CYPEIAN, 

who was bishop of Carthage, and sufYered martyrdom in 
the year 258. Speaking of the Jews calling upon Pilate 
to put our Lord to death, he says, — 4 That they would do 
this, both he himself had foretold, and the testimony of all 
the preceding prophets was, that he behoved to suffer, not 
that he might merely feel death, but that he might con- 
quer it ; and when he had suffered, might return to life 
anew, that he might show the power of the Divine Majesty. 
And the event justified the prediction ; for both when he 
was crucified, anticipating the duty of the executioner, he 
of his own accord dismissed his spirit ; and again, on the 
third day, he of his own accord rose from the dead. He 
appeared to his disciples as he had been before, and gave 
himself to be recognized by them, seeing him, and being 
joined with them, and conspicuous by the firmness of his 
corporeal substance, he remained with them forty days, 
that they might be instructed in his vital precepts, and 
learn what they should teach. Then he was taken up to 
heaven in a cloud, that he might, victorious, carry to the 
Father the man whom he loved, whom he put on, and 
whom he protected from death ; about to come from 
heaven for the punishment of the devil, and the censure 
of the human race, with all the vigour of an avenger, and 
all the power of a judge.' 1 Here it is distinctly asserted 

1 Hoc facturos et ipse prsedixerat, et prophetarum omnium testimonium 
sic ante prseceperat, oportere ilium pati, non ut sentiret tantum mortem, sed 



374 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



that our Lord's death was perfectly voluntary at the mo- 
ment when it took place ; an assertion in direct and irre- 
concileable opposition to the tenet that he had taken fall- 
en sinful flesh, and, consequently, died by the common 
property of flesh to die, because it was accursed in the 
loins of our first parents. His language, toward the end 
of the extract, assumes, it will be observed, a Nestorian 
character, but Nestorius had not then been heard of, and 
Cyprian is perfectly sound. 

In his Testimonies of Scripture against the Jews, he 
quotes Psalms xiii. and xvi., and the text, " No man tak- 
eth my life from me," in proof of the proposition, Quod 
a morte non vinceretur, nec apud inferos mansurus esset, — 
that is, 4 That he should not be conquered by death, nor 
should remain in the grave.' P. 257. 

GREGORY, 

bishop of Neo-Cesarea, commonly called Thaumaturgus, 
died in 265. There are twelve anathemas which are 
commonly attributed to this Father. Their genuineness 
has been called in question ; but the only reason that I 
have seen assigned against them appears to me to be a 
very insufficient one. It is objected to them, that they so 
plainly condemn the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches, 
that they must have been written after their times. But 
the fact is, that these heresies, especially the former, had, 
in one shape or another, harassed the Church from the be- 

ut vinceret : et cum passus esset, ad superos denuo regredi, ut vim divinae 
majestatis ostenderet. Fidem itaque rerum cursus implevit : nam et cruci- 
fixus, prasvento carnificis officio, spiritum sponte dimisit, et die tertio rursus 
a mortuis sponte surrexit. Apparuit discipulis suis ut antea fuerat, agnos- 
cendum se videntibus praebuit, simul junctus et substantias corporalis firmi- 
tate conspicuus ad dies quadraginta remoratus est, ut de eo ad praecepta 
vitalia instrui possent, et discerent quas docerent. Tunc in coelum circum- 
fusa nube sublatus est, ut hominem quern dilexit, quern induit, quern a morte 
protexit ad Patrem victor imponeret ; jam venturus e coelo ad poenam dia- 
boli, et ad censuram generis liumani, ultoris vigore, et judicis potestate. — De 
Idolorum Vanitata, p. 297. Edition of Rigaltius. Paris, 1666. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 375 

ginning ; and it has been distinctly shown by several 
learned men, especially by Waterland on the Athanasian 
Creed, that Nestorianisni had been condemned by Catho- 
lic writers at least half a century before Nestorius was 
heard of. The proof may with great ease be carried up 
to a much earlier date. Nearly two hundred years before 
Nestorius, Paul of Samosata maintained the very same 
heresy in a much grosser form. He argued, that as the 
u form of a servant," which God is said to have assumed, 
— means a servant ; and as the first of these had a dis- 
tinct personal existence, so had the last. And what is 
this but a grosser form of Nestorianism ? Now Gre- 
gory of Neo-Cesarea was one of the principal persons 
in the Council of Antioch, in which the tenets of Paul 
were condemned. I should think, therefore, that it was 
perfectly natural, that he should compose some anathemas 
condemnatory of Nestorian doctrines. And in looking 
into the anathemas, it is quite evident that they are level- 
led against something much grosser than ever Nestorius 
held. For example, the third anathema is against those 
who say that Christ assumed a distinct man, as for ex- 
ample, one of the prophets, and not that he himself be- 
came man ; and the sixth is against those who say that on 
the cross one suffered, and another remained impassible. 
Now, these things Nestorius did not maintain, while Paul 
did. Clearly, therefore, as these anathemas condemn the 
Nestorian doctrine, I am very strongly inclined to think 
that it was against a much worse Nestorian than Nes- 
torius ever was that they are levelled. Their clear con- 
demnation of the Apollinarian heresy, I should consider 
a stronger objection against them ; but that also might 
be met in the same manner. I cannot admit that the 
objection against their genuineness has the slightest 
weight. 

The seventh of these anathemas is this — 1 If any one say 
that Christ was saved, and confesseth not that he was the 
Saviour of the world, and the light of the world, as it is 



376 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



written, let him be anathema.' 1 There is a strong resem- 
blance between this and the tenth of the twelve anathemas 
of the Council of Ephesus, which condemns those who say 
that Christ offered a sacrifice for himself also, and not for 
us only, since he could need no sacrifice who knew no sin. 
If our Lord redeemed his own creature-substance, as we 
are now taught, then Gregory and the Council of Ephesus 
were wrong ; and Paul and ISTestorius were right ; though, 
to do the latter justice, he did not go so far, however na- 
turally the tenet may result from his principles. 

The ninth anathema is, — 'If any one say that Christ 
was changeable or mutable, and confess not that he was 
unchangeable in his spirit, and incorruptible in his flesh, 
let him be anathema.' 2 

There is also a creed ascribed to Gregory, to which the 
same objection has been taken. To that objection I make 
the same reply, but with considerably less confidence in 
the genuineness of the creed than in that of the anathe- 
mas. After condemning those who make different adora- 
tions due to Christ, one divine and one human, and ex- 
plaining the doctrine of the Incarnation at much length, 
the creed says : — Non duce personce neque dum natuile, 
nec enim et quatuor adorari dicimus, Deum, et Filiam Dei, et 
hominem, et Spiritum Sanctum. That this creed was writ- 
ten long before the Eutychian heresy is quite clear, and 
seems to be directed against that of Apollinarius, though 
it may as well be supposed to refer to that of Paul of Sa- 
mosata. But whoever was its author, it is certain that 

1 E/ rig Ksyei aoj^optevoi/ rou 'Xgierov, koci [&y\ opohoytL 
ccvrou *2arvi(>oirov xoffj&ov, xai <po>g rov xoapov xc&Qag ygy^atx- 

2 E/ rig Tisyst rqs7rroi/ tj aXhoiurav rov Xgicrrov, Jteti pv\ 
opiohoyei avrov ctrgSTrrov ra Truzvpoiri, uCp&ot^rou — some read 
QOagrov, a mere mistake of the copyist, as it is in palpable opposition to 
the sense, as appears from the interpretation which follows it — rr\ act(>x.t 
ccuxfaftx sera. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



377 



the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh formed no part of his 
faith. A sounder view is given a little lower down,— 
1 There was one Son before the Incarnation, and after the 
Incarnation the same was man and God, both as one : 
there is not one person of God the Word, and another of 
the man Jesus ; but the same who was previously the Son 
was united to the flesh of Mary, constituting himself a 
perfect and holy and sinless man, and administering the 
work of the Incarnation, for the salutary renovation of 
humanity, and of the whole world.' 1 

METHODIUS 

was bishop of Tyre, and suffered martyrdom in the year 
302, or 303. His sentiments have been already suffi- 
ciently seen, in the manner in which he attempts to escape 
the pressure of the text urged by the Gnostics against the 
resurrection, — " flesh and blood shall not inherit the king- 
dom of heaven." He is the first author whom I have 
met with who exalts the Virgin Mary with those extra- 
vagant praises which ultimately led to the adoption of the 
notion, that even she was born without original sin. In 
his discourse upon Simeon and Anna, he speaks of her in 
a way in which we are not now permitted to talk of Christ 
himself, without being charged with heresy; declaring 
that her bosom was a throne far surpassing all humanity, 
and that time would fail him, and all generations, worthi- 
ly to praise her. And as to the humanity of our Lord 

1 Unus filius ante incarnationem, et post incarnationem idem homo et 
Dens utrumque tanquam unum ; et non alia quidem persona Deus Verbnm, 
alia vero homo Jesns ; sed idem qui prius erat filius, unitus est carni ex 
Maria, constituens seipsum perfectum, et sanctum, et sine peccato hominem, 
et administrans opus incarnationis ad renovationem salutariam humanitatis, 
et totius mundi. 

I know not if the original of this creed has ever been published. I quote 
from a translation of it by Turrianus which is inserted in the works of 
Gregory. 



378 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



being inferior to that of unf alien Adam, he in some places 
seems to intimate that that humanity was the identical 
soul and body of Adam united to the Word. I feel it, 
therefore, totally useless to produce any of the extracts 
which I had made from him. 

ARNOBIUS 

was a professor of rhetoric in Sicca, a city of Numidia, in 
the beginning of the fourth century. He has written a 
treatise, in seven books, against the heathens. As he 
wrote when he was only a catechumen, his work is of 
much greater value as an exposure of the follies of Pagan- 
ism, than as an illustration or defence of Christian doc- 
trine. He falls into various errors ; but they are obvi- 
ously the errors, not of a man attempting to improve the 
gospel, but of a man imperfectly instructed in it. Indeed, 
it may be remarked of most of the primitive defenders of 
Christianity, that they find so rich and inviting a field in 
the absurdities of Paganism, that we are grievously dis- 
appointed, in reading them, to find that they hardly notice 
the doctrines of the Gospel at all. This remark is naturally 
suggested by the work of Arnobius, who was much better 
acquainted with the errors of the religion that he had for- 
saken, than with the truths of that which he had embraced. 

In Book I. page 12, he has a great many questions, 
each commencing with the words, Ille mortalis, aut units e 
nobis fuit f — 4 Was he mortal, or one of us,' who did so and 
so ? All this, however, may be supposed merely as fit- 
ted to prove the Divinity of our Lord. But in page 18, 
he takes up the objection that he was slain as a man. 
He replies that it was not he, but the man whom he put 
on and carried about with him ; and enters at much length 
into the matter, in language more objectionable than any 
that Nestorius some time afterwards made use of, but 
clearly enough showing, that of the sinfulness of our Lord's 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



379 



flesh he had no idea. I copy in the margin the conclu- 
sion of the passage. 1 I need not translate it. It is plain 
that Arnobius had not the most distant idea that Christ 
died by the common property of flesh to die. By an in- 
verted application of his power, that is, by using it to hurt 
men instead of healing them, he could have smitten his 
enemies with blindness, and withered up all their strength. 
In talking of the pueriles ineptice, Arnobius goes much 
farther, and a great deal too far. But though his language 
here is very objectionable, and though throughout the 
whole passage it more widely deviates from the truth than 
that of ISTestorius ever did ; still it seems plain that his 
errors were merely the errors of ignorance, — as indeed 
Cassiodorus says that those of Xestorius himself were ; only 
he obstinately defended them, and that might be easily 
overlooked in a catechumen, which called for the most 
distinct notice, and the most severe censure in the bishop 
of Constantinople, then the imperial city. And it is quite 
clear, that among his errors that of the sinfulness of 
Christ's flesh could not be numbered. 

LACTAOTIUS 

studied rhetoric under Arnobius, and wrote his Institu- 
tions about the year 320. I have already had occasion to 

1 Vides enim si nollet inferri sibi a quoquam manus, summa illi fuisse con- 
tentione nitendum, ut hostes ab se suos vel potestate inversa prohiberet ? 
Qui csecis restituerat lumina, is efficere si deberet, non poterat cbbcos ? Qui 
debilibus integritatem, is debiles reddere difficultati habuit, aut labori ? Qui 
claudos praecipiebat incedere, is motus alligare membrorum nervorum duri- 
tia nesciebat ? Qui extrahebat a tumulis mortuos, hinc arduum fuerat letum 
cui vellet indicere? Sed quia fieri ratio ea, quse fuerant destinata, poscebat : 
et hie in ipso mundo, nee modo, quani gestum est alio, inestimabilis ilia atque 
incredibilis lenitas injurias in se hominum, puerilibus pro ineptiis ducens, 
manus in se porrigi ab immanibus passa est durissimisque latronibus, nec 
iraputandum putavit, quod illorum dissignasset audacia, dummodo suis os- 
tenderet, quid ab sese expectare deberent. — The edition from which I copy 
is that appended by Rigaltius to his edition of Cyprian. 



380 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



show, that upon any point of Christian doctrine his opinion 
is not worth quoting. He was, I believe, the first to 
argue upon a ground which has since been often employed 
to disprove the Divinity of our Lord, and is strongly re- 
lied upon in proof of the sinfulness of his humanity. The 
principle upon which he reasons, if it be a sound one, is 
perfectly sufficient to accomplish both those purposes. 
But it is certain that he contemplated no such results, nor 
saw the danger of the ground on which he argued. That 
he did not believe that our Lord took fallen sinful flesh, is 
apparent from the following crude statement : — c For God 
the Father, the origin and principle of things, since he has 
no parents, is most truly said by Trismegistus to be omxTcog 
yean otpyTag, without Father and without Mother, as he is 
procreated of none. Therefore, also, it behoved the Son 
to be twice born, that he might be without father and 
without mother. In his first spiritual nativity, he was with- 
out mother, because, without the intervention of a mother, 
he was generated of God the Father alone. In his second 
fleshly nativity he was without father ; since, without the 
intervention of a father, he was generated in the virgin's 
womb, that bearing a middle substance between God and 
man, he might lead this our frail and feeble nature, as it 
were, by the hand to immortality. He was made the Son 
of God through the Spirit, and the Son of Man through 
the flesh, that is, both God and Man. The power of God 
appeared in him from the works which he wrought ; the 
frailty of man from the passion which he endured ; which, 
why he undertook, I shall show in a little. In the mean- 
time, we learn from the prophets that he was both God and 
man mixed of both.' 1 Should any one choose to charge 

1 In prima enim nativitate spirituale ccf^/ftcd^ fait; quia sine officio matris 
a solo Deo Patre generatus est. In secunda vero carnali oizsoira)^ fait ; quo- 
niam sine patris officio, virginali utero procreatus est; ut mediam inter 
Deum et hominem substantiam gerens, nostram hanc fragilem imbecillem- 
que naturam quasi manu ad immortalitatem posset educere. Factus est et 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



381 



Lactantius with the heresy which was afterwards known 
by the name of Eutychianism, such language would afford 
a ground for the charge. But the truth is, that he had no 
design to teach that or any other heresy ; he improperly 
expressed what he imperfectly understood, that is all. 

JULIUS FIRMICUS MATEKNUS 

wrote under the government of the Emperor Constantius 
and Constans, and, consequently, near the middle of the 
fourth century. Who he was, what he was, or of what 
country, is unknown. He has addressed to the Emperor 
just named a very small but a very excellent treatise, Be 
religionumprofanarum err ore. Though, like the two last- 
quoted authors, he assails the absurdities of Paganism, yet 
he shows himself much better acquainted with the doc- 
trines of the gospel than either of them. His object, in- 
deed, does not lead him to enter into any particular expo- 
sition of these doctrines ; but his incidental notices of them 
show an acquaintance with them which neither Amobius 
nor Lactantius had attained. In one place he thus speaks, 
— 4 But this holy stone, that is, Christ, either sustains the 
foundations of faith, or, placed upon the corner, conjoins 
the two walls, that is, collects into one the people of the 
Old and of the IsTew Testament ; or certainly he associates 
with man a diversity of body and mind by an inviolable 
immortality ; or promulgates the law ; or bears testimony 
against sinners,' &C. 1 He says also, — 4 We drink the 
immortal blood of Christ ; the blood of Christ is joined to 
our blood. This is the salutary remedy for thy crimes, 

Dei filins per spiritum, et hominis per carnem, id est, et Dens et homo. — Nec 
Deus nec homo, would have been a truer definition of his media substantia. — 
Dei virtus in eo ex operibus quse fecit apparent ; fragilitas hominis, ex pas- 
sione quam pertulit, quam cur susceperit, paulo post docebo. Interim et Deum 
faisse et hominem, ex utroque genere permistum, prophetis vaticinantibus 
discimus. — Institutiones, Lib. iv. cap. 13. Edition of Spark, Oxford, 1684. 
1 Lapis autem hie sanctus, id est, Christus, aut fidei fundamenta sustentat, 



382 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



which repels the deadly poison from the people of God.' 1 
Again, — 4 All the elements were troubled during the com- 
bat of Christ, then, namely, when first he armed his 
human body against the tyranny of death. For three 
days that conflict endured, till death, all the powers of its 
malice being conquered, was broken.' 2 

It was common among the Fathers to apply to the cruci- 
fixion of our Lord the text, " the government shall be on 
his shoulders," some applying it to his cross being laid on 
his shoulders while he bore it to the place of crucifixion, 
and most applying it to the circumstance of its being ap- 
plied to his shoulders while it bore him ; so much were 
they in the habit of considering the cross as the scene of 
our Lord's triumph over death, and not as the scene of 
death's conquest of him. They expound, consequently, 
the figure of the cross as significative of his dominion. 
They differ, no doubt, in the details, which in all will, in 
the present age, be considered as fanciful. Some tell us 
that the bottom of the cross being sunk in the earth, de- 
noted the dominion of him on whose shoulders it was 
over the infernal powers ; its top erected toward heaven 
signified his dominion over the heavenly powers ; and the 
ends of the transverse beam, pointing in opposite directions, 
showed the extension of his dominion over all things. This 
is not exactly the interpretation of our present author, nor is 
it worth while to give it. It is enough to say, that it is 
exactly the same in principle. I refer to it for the sake of 

ant in angulo positus, duorum parietum membra sequata moderatione con* 
jnngit, id est, Veteris et Novi Testamenti in unnm colligit, gentes ; aut certe 
corporis et animi diversitatem, inviolata homini immortalitate consociat ; 
aut legem promulgat, &c. — R 35, Edition of Wower, Oxford, 1662. 

1 Christi immortalem sanguinem bibimus ; nostro sanguini Christi sanguis 
adjunctus est. Hoc est salutare remedium scelerum tuorum, quod a Dei 
plebe mortiferum virus excludit. — P. 37. 

2 Omnia elementa Cbristo pugnante turbata sunt, tunc scilicet cum pri- 
mum contra mortis tyrannidem humanum corpus armavit. Per triduum ista 
confiictatione pugnatum est, quamdiu mors, superatis malicise suae viribus, 
frangeretur. — P. 41. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



383 



the reflections with which he follows up his explanation. 
It is one of his peculiarities, — and a very excellent pecu- 
liarity it is, — that the mention of a heathen absurdity 
commonly reminds him of some opposite excellence in 
Christianity. The mention of some of the horned gods of 
the heathens reminds him of the horns of the cross, that is, 
the ends of the transverse beam, and, according to him, the 
upper end also of the upright beam ; after having shown 
the meaning of which, he says : — c Behold the venerable 
horns of the cross ! behold the immortal excellence of holy 
power, and the divine structure of a glorious work ! Thou, 
Christ, by extended hands, — extended on the cross, name- 
ly, — sustainest the world and the earth ; thou sustainest 
the government of heaven : our salvation adheres to thy 
immortal shoulders ; thou, Lord, carriest the sign of eter- 
nal life ; thou, by thy adorable inspiration, hast told us 
this through the prophets, for Isaiah saith, 4 Unto us a 
Son is born, and the government shall be upon his shoul- 
ders, and his name shall be the messenger of great coun- 
sel.' These are the horns of the cross by which all things 
are supported and contained. Upon these horns the life 
of men securely rests.' 1 Such sentiments, somewhat fan- 
ciful though they be, I confess I feel to be pleasant, after 
the eloquent ignorance of Lactantius. 

EUSTATHIUS, Bishop of Antioch, 

died about the year 335. He has written a treatise on 
the Pythoness, which I have not read. Some fragments 
of his other theological works are preserved by Theodoret, 
from whom I take the following quotations. On the text, 
" The Lord created me in the beginning of his way," he 
says, — l For the temple is properly the pure and immaculate 
human tabernacle of the Word, in which God dwelt,' and 

1 P. 38. As I quote the passage for no argumentative purpose, I may be 
spared copying the original. 



384 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



in proof of this he quotes the text, " Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will rear it up." 1 The following is 
from his book on the soul : — ' Their ungodly calumny may 
be easily repelled ; especially if he did not, for the salva- 
tion of men, willingly give up his own body to death. For, 
first, they attribute much weakness to him, as if he had 
not been able to repress the attack of his enemies.' 2 
Again, — 4 If, then, from what has already been stated, the 
Divinity of Christ is shown to have been impassible, they 
in vain refer to the decision of the Apostles. For if Paul 
says, u the Lord of Glory was crucified," plainly referring 
to the Man, it will not be proper on that account to attri- 
bute the suffering to the Divinity. Why then do they 
join these things, saying, that Christ was crucified through 
weakness ?' 3 



EUSEBIUS, 

of Cesarea, died in the year 338. Kemarking that our 
Lord by his Incarnation neither changed his essence, nor 
lost what belonged to his own nature, nor fell away from 
his divinity, he says : — c Nor did he converse with those 



1 NtfOf yci(> Kvgtog 6 kolQcc(>o$ koii c&^c^vTog, 7] koctcc tov 
cx,yQ^6)7Cov svTt Tre^i tov "Koyov ckyivyi, evQoi Trgotpotvag oxYivavug 
coxYiaev 6 Qsog. — Er artistes of Theodoret, Dialogue i. p. 38. 

2 At ohtyuv 'he saTtv gAsy|#/ ty\v ocgzQyi avKoty&vTtoLv av- 

TOiV % fiOLhlUTM, (AtV yoCg, €t ftY} TY}g T6)V Ct,vQ(*6)'7raV £ViX,ZV IZcdTYl- 

(>ic&g ztg tyiv tov Smvmtov otyayviv to ibtov eKovatag e^sithov 
cupel. TIqmtov pev noKhYiv uvtoj Trs^tocTrTovatv ulivvK/Atoiv, 
OTt fiYi ol og t eyevzTO tyiv Tttv rtoT^sptav og/UYji/ vxtayjuv. — 
Eranistes, p. 156. 

3 E/ ytzg 6 Ucivhog etpgaae tov Kvgtov Trig ^o^vjg io-TUV^m- 
Bc&i, actCpcdg etg tov ocv^uttov ciQogcov, ov Trot^ct tovto "hews* 

TTOldog TO) BstOJ ItQOUOL'TVTilV. Tt OVV TOtVTOC GVVWXTOVGl TT'ki- 

xovTeg g| cur&evstug svTMVgaaDott "KsyovTsg tov 'Kqto'TOv, — 

Eranistes, p. 157. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



385 



only wno were there where his human vessel was present, 
forbidden to be in other parts of the universe. For then, 
when he had his conversation with men, he nevertheless 
filled all things, and at the same time was with the Father, 
and in the Father, and also managed all things in heaven 
and in earth, by no means shut out, as we are, from being 
present everywhere ; nor prevented from exercising his 
Divine powers in the usual manner, but communicating 
the things that belong to himself to the man, not, however, 
receiving from the mortal man the things belonging to 
him ; furnishing that which was mortal with Divine power, 
but not, on the other hand, participating in that which was 
mortal.' 1 In Book ILL chap. iv. he enters largely into 
the question, and shows that our Lord's death was per- 
fectly voluntary, and that when he had arisen from the 
dead, he showed himself ' in the flesh, in the body, the 
very same that he had been before, to his disciples ;' 2 but 
I prefer the two following sentences from another Book, 
as they are short : — c Therefore, nobody having power 
over his life, he of his own accord laid it down for men, as 
he himself teacheth, saying, No man taketh my life from 
me,' &c. 3 Again, — 4 Also, when I hung upon my mother's 
breasts, receiving the food of infants, I was thought to be 
like other human children, imperfect, and without the use 
of reason, not being such, though I had a body like that of 
men ; for neither in power, nor in essence, (or substance,) 

1 czKhct, rd^iv g| c&vtov fteroihi^ovg rco e&vdgawa, 

TC& i'A TOV Sl/YjTOV f^Yl ClVT l'h0lft ( vC&V6)U' TLCtl TY}g [AZV ZV &S0V 
}>VVtX>[AZ6d$ TC0§!/Y}T6) %0(>Yiy6W, TTjg (f SK TOV §VYlT0V [AYlTOVG tag OUX, 

OLVTZTrayOfAiVOg. — Evangelical Demonstration, Book iv. chap. xiii. Edi- 
tion of Vigeras, Paris, 1628. 

2 K.cct tfoihiu ccvrog ketvroy svgoiqxo!/, zvatofAov, 
uvtov ex,ei>/ou, oiov kui to tu^iv jjy, roig oucuoig (fioiQmToig. 

3 Aio f4,-/j^iuog i-^ourog e^ovaiocu mg gcvtov **pv%Yig sxau &v- 

TOg V7T£(> MU@(>a7r6)V OLVTYIV TsfelKSV, aaTCSQ OVU ^i^Otd'jtil "htyav, 

ovl>zt MtQSt tyiv •tyuxflv fiov, x,. T. A. — Book x. p. 496, 

R 



386 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



was I like others, but altogether free as thy Lamb, O thou 
who art my God,' &C. 1 The whole of Book X. abounds 
in remarks of this kind. 

Whilst speaking of Eusebius, I may remark also that 
Marcellus of Ancyra, against whom he wrote a treatise, 
though very heretical with regard to the person of our 
Lord, yet repeatedly and distinctly admits that his flesh 
was immortal. Now his peculiarity was, that the Word 
of God never had a personal existence until the Incarna- 
tion, and that after the mystery of God was finished, he 
should again lay aside his distinct personality, and exist 
only in the Father as before. This opinion would naturally 
have led him to adopt the Socinian views, that our Lord 
was merely a mortal man. And it is a strong proof of the 
nature of the sentiments then universally entertained, that 
even he, obviously against his principles, and with undis- 
guised reluctance, admits that the flesh of Christ was im- 
mortal. By immortal, he, of course, meant that he did 
not need to die unless he pleased, as he was very far in- 
deed from denying that he actually did die, 

ATHANASIUS, Bishop of Alexandria, 

died in 373. The zeal with which he laboured, and the 
fortitude with which he suffered, and the uncompromising 
fidelity to the truth which he uniformly manifested, have 
secured for him a well-deserved and undying fame. I 
can make room only for one or two extracts from him, but 
there is no writer to whom the reader may be more safely 
referred for sound views upon the constitution of our Lord's 

1 AAAfli Org OLKO [AUGTMV ^YjT^Og {AOV TY}V VY\7irtO^Yl T£0- 

(pzaiv ocTiTiYig zivc&i 'a&i cChoyog" f&yi av yci(> roiovrog, st tcoli <ra- 

{MX, {AOl OfAQIQV C6vQ(>6)7r0tS YIU, X,Ml TY}V liVVClfAlV, Olihi TY\V QVGtOtV, 

roig KoKKotg uv e/uQegYig, oivsrog kmi oc7roKvrog, x,. r. A. — 

Book x. p. 500. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



387 



person. His zealous opposition to the Arians naturally 
gave him a leaning toward the opposite extreme to theirs, 
that of exalting the humanity too high ; yet I recollect at 
present no expression of his upon this subject which can 
be deemed directly erroneous, though certainly he has 
much language stronger by far than that which, in the 
present age, has been held to imply a very palpable denial 
of the humanity of our Lord altogether. Of this the fol- 
lowing sentence will afford abundant proof : — c But as we, 
having received the Spirit, do not lose our own nature, 
even so our Lord, after he was for our sakes made man, 
and took a body, nevertheless remained God : for he was 
not diminished by being clothed with a body, but rather 
deified the body, and rendered it immortal.' 1 This lan- 
guage may probably be deemed too strong at present, even 
by those who would shun with the utmost care the tenet 
of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh ; but in the age of 
Athanasius it was common. It is certainly very liable to 
abuse, and has probably been the more carefully avoided 
in modern times, that at the Reformation, some Lutheran 
divines went so far as to maintain, that all the attributes 
of the Divinity were communicated to the humanity of 
Christ, than which a more fatal error cannot well be con- 
ceived. Athanasius had no such meaning ; but it is clear 
that, using such language, he was far, indeed, from enter- 
taining the tenet of the sinfulness of our Lord's flesh, for 
they who, in the present age, have been accused of going 
so far away from that doctrine, as to deny the flesh of 
Christ altogether, have used no language so strong as this. 
He states his sentiments also very strongly in his third 

1 AAAdfc cdamf) Yiftug to irvtv^a, 7^a,fA&cx.uQVTzg, oux, airoKhv- 
(tzv tyiv ihiau kdVTOiv ovgiolv' ovrag 6 Kvgiog yevopevog o 
YifAcig ctu^oi7rog, Koit aojftct, (pogsffc&g, ovhiu qrTOv Yiv Geog' ov 

VjAK&TTOVTO TYl 7TS^t^o7iYj TOV (JOJfAXTOg, CCT^hOL KCtl fi&KhQV 

ehoTTOieiro tovto, xmi cx,9oiuktqv MKiTihu. — Epi&fU on the Decrees 
of the Council of Nice, chap. xiy. 



388 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



discourse against the Arians, chap, xxxii. and xxxiii. But 
instead of multiplying extracts, I prefer taking one from 
his treatise on the Incarnation, of which I have had oc- 
casion to avail myself on a former occasion. In chap. xxL 
of that treatise he argues against those who thought that 
if Christ must die he ought at least to have laid aside his 
body in an honourable manner, and says, that if Christ 
had died in bed like other men, he might have been sup- 
posed, like other men, to have died through infirmity of 
nature, and to have had nothing more than other men. 
He goes on in the same manner in the succeeding chap- 
ters, till he comes to the xxivth, which I give entire. 

' It is necessary to anticipate an objection that may be 
raised by others, for some may be ready to say, 4 If it was 
necessary that Christ should die in the sight of all, that 
the declaration of his resurrection might be believed, he 
ought surely to have chosen an honourable death, or, at 
least, to have avoided the ignominy of the cross.' But if 
lie had done so, it would have given room for the suspi- 
cion that he could not prevail over any kind of death, but 
only over that which he had chosen ; and hence there 
would have been no less a pretence for denying the resur- 
rection. Hence death came to his body, not from himself, 
but from treachery, that whatever death they might inflict 
upon the Saviour, he might destroy that death. And as a 
noble challenger, alike prudent and manly, chooses not op- 
ponents for himself, lest he should be suspected of coward- 
ice, but leaves that to the spectators, especially if they 
be enemies, that, having conquered whomsoever they may 
choose to oppose to him, he may be judged the conqueror 
of all ; even so the life of all, our Lord and Saviour Christ, 
chose not for himself the death of the body, lest he might 
seem to fear any other death ; but even the death of the 
cross, chosen by others, and especially by enemies, which 
they, as bitter and ignominious, conceived was to be avoid- 
ed, he refused not to undergo ; that even this being dis- 
solved, he might be believed to be the Life, and the power 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES, 



389 



of death might be entirely destroyed. There happened, 
therefore, something wonderful and unexpected, that while 
they thought to inflict an ignominious death, that just be- 
came a trophy over death itself. Hence he neither suffer- 
ed like John, by decapitation, nor like Isaiah was sawed 
asunder, that even in death his body might be preserved 
entire, and no pretence might be afforded to those who 
might wish to divide the Church.' 1 

In chap. xliv. of the same treatise, he argues that as 
corruption was inherent in the body, so it was necessary 
that in the body of Christ life should be inherent. 1 If 
death inhered in the body, and was stronger than it, it 
was, therefore, necessary that life should be inherent in 
the body, and that the body, endued with life instead of 
death, might reject corruption.' Indeed, such sentiments 
abound in him to such a degree, that some attempts have 
been made to call in question his belief in the human soul 
of Christ. I need not say that this is a point upon which 
there can be no question whatever ; but had he written 
nothing save his treatise on the Incarnation, it is a charge 
from which it would not be easy to defend him. 

HILARY, Bishop of Poictiers, 

died in the year 367. In maintaining the purity of the 
Catholic faith against the Arians, he was the second man 
in that generation ; and he was the second, only because 
the first was Athanasius. Like that mighty master whom 
it was his delight to imitate, and whom it was his greatest 
crime, in that backsliding age, zealously to defend, he 
suffered banishment for the truth's sake ; like him he en- 
dured suffering with the most unshrinking fidelity and 
fortitude ; and, like him, was at last happily restored to 

1 As the weight of the testimony here depends not upon a single phrase, 
about which there might be a difference as to the proper mode of translation, 
but upon the general strain of the reasoning, the labour of copying the ori- 
ginal seems unnecessary. 



390 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



his Church, and died in peace. Of such a man it is 
impossible to think or to speak without respect. I much 
regret, therefore, the necessity of introducing his name 
into this discussion at all ; for with regard to our Lord's 
humanity his opinions were of the most fatal description. 
He maintained that our Lord was never capable of feeling 
hunger, or thirst, or weariness, or pain, or sorrow, or fear ; 
that he felt them all in appearance only, not in reality. 
I^Tor is it merely in a passing sentence, which might be 
hastily put down and easily overlooked, that he expresses 
such a view. The great object of his tenth book on the 
Trinity is just to state and defend this view ; and so 
warmly does he enter into it, that he calls in question the 
genuineness of that part of the Gospel of Luke which re- 
lates our Saviour's bloody sweat, and the coming of an 
angel to comfort him ; stating that it is wanting in many 
copies both Greek and Latin. But on the supposition that 
it may be genuine, he shows how it may be explained in 
conformity with his views of our Lord's humanity. He 
is one of those who have richly furnished Priestley with 
materials for giving a plausible colour to the charge which 
he brings against the Fathers, of maintaining a view of 
our Lord's humanity which does not materially differ from 
that of the Gnostics. As it is to me the reverse of a 
pleasure to draw into notice the errors of such a man, I 
shall merely justify the remarks which I have felt it neces- 
sary to make, by throwing into the margin a passage from 
his tenth book on the Trinity, without translation. 1 

1 Homo itaque Jesus Christus unigenitus Deus per carnem et Verbum, ut 
hominis filius, ita et Dei films, hominem verum secundum similitudinem 
nostri hominis non deficiens a se Deo, sumpsit : in quern quamvis aut ictus 
incideret, aut vulnus descenderet, aut nodi concurrerent, aut suspensio 
elevaret, afferrent quidem h£ec impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem 
passionis inferrent, ut telum aliquod aut aquam perforans, aut ignem com- 
pungens, aut aera vulnerans. Omnes quidem has passiones naturae sute 
infert, ut perforet, ut compungat, ut vulneret ; sed naturam suam in hssc 
passio illata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel 
pungi ignem, vel aera vulnerari, quamvis naturee teli sit vulnerare, et 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



891 



MACAKIUS of Egypt. 

There were several of this name who lived nearly at the 
same time, towards the end of the fourth century. To 
which of them we are indebted for the fifty homilies that 
bear this name has not been ascertained ; nor is it a mat- 
ter of much consequence, as they are of little value. Of 
an Egyptian monk, in the end of the fourth century, who 
certainly was not endued with much power of close think- 
ing, or with much extent of knowledge, it can hardly be 
necessary to say, that he is as far as possible from holding 
the tenet of the sinfulness of our Saviour's flesh. He is 
full of allegory and mysticism, and seems to have been a 
good man with few clear ideas upon any subject. Speak- 
ing of the brazen serpent which Moses made, he calls it 
a 4 new work,' and then goes on thus, — 4 So the Lord 
made a new work out of Mary, which he put on, for he 
brought not his body from heaven ; he framed the heavenly 
spirit that entered into Adam, and this he mingled with 
his divinity, and put on human flesh, and formed it in the 
womb. As then before the time of Moses, God had not 
commanded a brazen serpent to be made in the world ; 
even so until the time of our Lord, a new and impeccable 

compungere et forare. Passus quiclem Doininus Jesus Christus, dum csecli- 
tur, dum suspenditur, dum cruciflgitur, dum moritur, sed in corpus Domini 
irruens passio, nec non fait passio, nec tamen naturam passionis exercuit ; 
cum et pcenali ministerio ilia desEevit, et virtus corporis sine sensu poenfe, 
vim pcenae in se dessevientis excepit. Habuerit sane illud Domini corpus 
doloris nostri naturam, si corpus nostrum id naturae habet, ut calcet undas. 
et super fluctus eat, et non degravetur ingressu, neque aquae insistentis 
vestigiis cedant, penetret etiam solida, nec clausae domus obstaculis arceatur. 
At vero si Dominici corporis sola ista natura sit, ut sua virtute, sua anima 
feratur in humidis, et insistat in liquidis, et exstructa transcurrat, quid 
per naturam humani corporis concepta ex Spiritu Sancto carojudicatur ? 
Caro ilia, id est, panis ille de coelis est. Et homo ille de Deo est, liabens ad 
patiendum quidem corpus, et passus est, sed naturam non habens ad dolen- 
dum. Naturae enim propriae ac suae corpus illud est, quod in ccelestem 
gloriam transformatur in Monte ; quod attactu suo fugat febres, quod de 
sputo suo occulos format. — P. 244. Edition of Paris, 1672, 



392 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



body appeared not in the world.' 1 From such an author, 
this, I suppose, will be held sufficient. 

OPTATUS, Bishop of Milevi in Africa, 

died about the year 372. He has written a treatise against 
Parmenianus, a Donatist of some celebrity, against whom 
Augustine has also written. Near the beginning of his 
treatise, after stating the order in which he means to pro- 
ceed, he says : — c But before I proceed to these matters, I 
shall first shortly show how improperly you have treated 
the flesh of Christ. For you have said that that sinful 
flesh, sunk in the flood of Jordan, was cleansed from all 
impurity. You might properly say this, if the flesh of 
Christ, being baptized, were sufficient for all, so that no 
one should be baptized for himself. If this were so, then 
the whole human race, every thing of corporeal birth, 
would have been there. There would be no difference be- 
tween the believer and any heathen, for they all have flesh. 
And whilst there is nobody who has not flesh, if, as you 
say, the flesh of Christ was sunk in the flood of Jordan, 
all flesh would partake of this benefit. But the flesh of 
Christ in Christ is one thing, and the flesh of any indivi- 
dual in himself is another thing. What mean you by say- 
ing that the flesh of Christ was sinful ? I wish you would 
say the flesh of man in the flesh of Christ. ISTor even 
then would your notion have any probability. For every 
believer is baptized in the name of Christ, and not in the 

1 ' Ovto xcu 6 Kvgiog xuivov t(>yov zx ring Mugtag zttoiwz, 
xa,i tqvtq zvzhvo&TO, ctAA 5 ovx yvzyxz to oa^tx. g§ ov^dvov* to 
wvev/tu to ovQduiov zv Ted A$&f& ziazT^ftov ztgyouioiTO, xctt tov- 
tov gvvzxz^&uz ty) Szot^ti, xui zvzhvaoLTO a,uQ(>a7rivYiv aocgxci, 
xoit BfAOgQaoett zv tyi (xyit^oc. ' QaTfzg ovv otyig %cthxovg sag toj 
Mcovazag ovx, zxz~hzv§Y\ vito tov Kv^ov zu xoopa yzvzaQocf 6v- 

TO) 7>Yl G6){A0t, XOCiUOU XXI OLVOCpClQTYlTOVy ZO)g TOV Kvg(QV OVX 

e(poci/Y} zu to xao-fta. — Homily xi. p, 69. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



393 



flesh of Christ, which was specialty his own. I add, that his 
flesh, conceived of the Holy Spirit, could not with others 
be baptized for the remission of sins, as it admitted no sin. 
You have added, 4 and sunk in the flood of Jordan,' using 
that word inconsiderately euough ; as it belongs to Pharaoh 
and his people, who, by the weight of their sins, sunk like 
lead not to rise again. But the flesh of Christ, while it 
descended into Jordan, and ascended out of it, you ought 
not to have said was sunk ; — whose flesh is found to be 
holier than Jordan itself, so that it rather purified the 
water by its descent than was itself purified.' 1 

Here at last we find the doctrine of the sinfulness of 
Christ's flesh ; and we find it just where it might have 
been expected to be found, not in a Churchman, but in a 
Donatist, who is justly rebuked by the Catholic Bishop for 
thus speaking of the flesh of Christ. Something similar, 
however, to the notion of Parmenianus, and, indeed, more 
grossly expressed, may be found at a still earlier period. 
There is inserted among the Epistles of Cyprian a small 
treatise, written by an anonymous author, but of or near 

1 Sed priusquam de rebus singulis aliquid dicam ; quod camem Christ! 
inale tractaveris, breviter ostendam. Dixisti enim camera illam peccatricem, 
Jordanis demersam dihmo, ab universis sordibus esse mundatam. Merito 
hoc diceres, si caro Christi pro omnibus baptizata sufficeret, ut nemo pro se 
baptizaretur. Si ita esset, ibi esset totum genus hominum ; illic omne quod 
corporalitu natum est : nihil esset inter fideles et unum quemque gentilem ; 
quia in omnibus caro est. Et dum nemo non est qui non habeat camem, 
sicut — si ut — dixisti, caro Christi diluvio Jordanis demersa est, omnis caro 
hoc beneficium consequeretur. Aliud est enim caro Christi in Christo, aliud 
uniuscujusque in se. Quid tibi visum est, camem Christi dicere peecatri- 
cem ? Utinam diceres, caro hominum in carne Christi. Is ec sic probabiliter 
dixeris. Quia unusquisque credens, in nomine Christi baptizatur ; non in 
came Christi, quaa specialiter illius erat. Addo, quod ejus caro de Spiritu 
Sancto concepta, inter alios non potuit in remissam peccatorum tingi, qua? 
nullum videbatur admisisse peccatum. Addidisti, ' et Jordanis diluvio de- 
mersam ;' satis inconsiderate hoc usus es verbo. Quod verbum soh Pharaoni 
et ejus populo debebatur, qui pondere delictorum, tanquam plumbum, ita 
mersus sit, ut ibi remanserit. Christi autem caro, dum in Jordane descendit 
et ascendit, demersa a te dici non debuit. Cujus caro, ipso Jordane sanctior 
invenitur, ut magis aquam ipsa descensu suo mundaverit, quam ipsa mundata 
sit—Lib. I. p. 8. Paris, 1676. 

r2 



394 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



the age of Cyprian, and opposing that Father's tenet, that 
they who had been baptized by heretics ought to be re- 
baptized. In that treatise mention is made of a book en- 
titled Pauli Prcedicatio, — it should be Petri Prcedicatio, — 
and it is said, — In quo libro contra omnes Scripturas, et de 
peccato proprino confitentem invenies Christum, qui solus 
omnino deliquit, et ad accipiendum Ioannis baptisma pene 
invituni a matre sua Maria esse compulsum. Here Christ 
is made 4 the only sinner,' with a vengeance. Parmenia- 
nus, I suppose, did not go this length ; for such blasphemy 
must soon have sunk under its own vileness. But he 
maintained the flesh of Christ to be sinful, and baptism to 
be in him, as in us, the sign of purification or regeneration. 
But if baptism was in Christ the sign of regeneration, then 
he must first have been pardoned ; for there can be no re- 
generation without pardon being previously granted. If, 
then, Christ needed regeneration, there can be no doubt 
that he needed pardon too. Moreover, the baptism of John 
was the baptism of repentance. If, then, the baptism of 
Christ was in him the sign of regeneration, it was as clearly 
the sign of repentance ; and he who repents, who is par- 
doned and regenerated, is unquestionably a sinner. And 
this Parmenianus must be presumed to have held, though 
he went not to the extent of impiety quoted above. 

One thing particularly deserves attention, that Optatus 
charges Parmenianus with holding the doctrine of univer- 
sal pardon, because he calls the flesh of Christ sinful. 
These are, in fact, only different pullulations of the same 
radical error. If the one be true the other must be so. 
This Optatus saw clearly. Now, it is not a little singular, 
that these two different branches of the same error should 
spring up about the same time, but as far as my informa- 
tion goes, in different places, and from different heads. 
Neither party, I suppose, saw at first that the one tenet 
involves the other. The two parties, however, I under- 
stand, are now nearly amalgamated ; and if there be any 
who embraces the one of these tenets without embracing 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



395 



the other also, he may be assured that he is yet very im- 
perfectly instructed in the grounds of his own error. And 
if the testimony of Optatus be of any weight, he may be 
equally assured that both the one tenet and the other was 
held in reprobation by the primitive Church. 

HILARY, the Deacon of Rome, 

belongs to this period, though the time of his death be un- 
certain. He has left a commentary on the Epistles of 
Paul. The whole of his comment on Rom. viii. 3, is very 
direct to the purpose, but I can make room for only a 
small portion of it. c For this reason, he says — like, be- 
cause though of the same substance of flesh, it had not the 
same nativity ; because the body of the Lord was not sub- 
ject to sin. For the flesh of the Lord was purified by the 
Holy Spirit, that he might be born in a body such as was 
that of Adam before sin.' 1 His exposition of the expres- 
sion, " he condemned sin in the flesh," which immediately 
follows, is singular. His idea is, that when Satan assailed 
the flesh of our Lord, he committed a sin against that 
flesh, and for that sin was condemned. He refers to the 
text, " triumphing over them in it," which he reads, " tri- 
umphing over them in him" id est, in Christo, that is, in 
Christ. So little did he know of the interpretation which 
the tenet of the sinfulness of Christ's flesh forces upon this 
passage. 

CYRIL, Bishop of Jerusalem, 
died about the year 386. In his fourteenth catechetical 

1 Propterea ergo similem dixit, quia de eadem substantia carnis, non eam- 
dem habuit nativitatem ; quia peccato subjectum non fuit corpus Domini, 
Expiata est enim a Spiritu Sancto caro Domini, ut in tali corpore nasceretur, 
quale fuit Adas ante peccatum ; sola tamen sententia data in Adam. — The 
concluding clause I have not translated, because, if it has any sense, I cannot 
find out what it is. For sola, the Roman edition, an utterly falsified one, has 
salva, which would make sense ; and in not a few MSS, the clause is wanting 
altogether, as I suppose it should be. 



396 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



discourse, chap, vi., he says that Christ came to baptism 
that he might sanctify baptism. So far I should suppose 
he is right ; for if baptism sanctified our Lord, who sancti- 
fied baptism ? In the same place he refers to Satan being 
deceived by the bait of Christ's flesh hiding his divinity, 
of which I have already had occasion to speak. In the 
same discourse, chap, xiv., he says : — 4 His birth was pure 
and unpolluted ; for where the Holy Spirit breathes, there 
all pollution is taken away. Most pure, however, was the 
fleshly birth of the only begotten of a virgin, however here- 
tics may gainsay it.' 1 He had previously spoken, in 
chap, xi., of the 4 holy flesh, the veil of the Divinity,' but 
the passage cannot be translated. In discourse 13, chap, 
iii., he says: — 4 He gave not up his life by compulsion, 
neither by violence was it taken away ; for hear what he 
himself saith, I have power to lay down my life,' &c. 2 
In another place he says : — 4 And do you wish to know, 
that not by violence he laid down his life ? Neither unwill- 
ingly gave up the ghost ? He addresseth the Father, say- 
ing, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.' 3 

BASIL, Bishop of Cesarea, 

commonly called Basil the Great, died in the year 379. 
In answer to the question, 4 In what manner is the Divi- 
nity in flesh ?' he says, — 4 As fire is in iron, not by tran- 
sition, but by impartation. For the fire runs not to the 
iron, but remaining in its place, it imparts to the iron of 

1 A%(>uvtos K&i #,(>(>V'7irot,()og vj yivuYivig. 6 7rov y&(> ttuu ftuev- 

[ACt, OtyiOUy iKil 7Ti(iiYl(JYlTOt,l KO^g {AOhVVfAOg. AQQVTTOg V) suacc(>- 

Kog yzvvYiGig rov /aouoyevovg exrvig KoL^favov, x,du ccvrfozycdoiv 
6i ot,i(i£Tix,oii. — Edition of Mills, Oxford, 1703. 

2 &vx, avccyxoiiag oKpYixe tyiu ^oyiv, ovhe fiiovty&ytog 

3 Kott SsKstg yyaucci on ov fitoa(po(,yG)g otTrehro rriv ^ojyju • 
fivSs anwvioig ttoc^coks to vruevfioi. — Discourse 13, chap. xyi. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



397 



its own native power. Neither is it diminished by the im- 
partation, even when it has wholly imparted itself. In 
the same way truly, God the Word was not moved out 
of himself, and yet dwelt among us, nor sustained any 
change. 1 And the Word was made flesh, neither was 
heaven deserted of him who sustains it, and earth received 
the heavenly in its bosom. Think not of any descent of 
the Divinity, for he passeth not from place to place as 
bodies do ; neither fancy the Divinity to be changed into 
flesh, for that which is immortal is immutable. How, then, 
you will say, was not God the Word filled with corporeal 
infirmity ? We reply, just as fire receives not the proper- 
ties of iron. Iron is black and cold ; but at the same time 
being ignited, it puts on the form of fire, not darkening 
the fire, but itself becoming shining ; and not cooling the 
flame, but itself becoming heated. Even so truly, the 
human flesh of the Lord was made a partaker of the Divi- 
nity, but imparted not to the Divinity of its native infir- 
mity. Or you do not admit that the Divinity operates 
like fire in this mortal flesh ; but you fancy some passion 
about the impassible from human infirmity ; and you doubt 
how the corruptible nature, by fellowship with God, could 
be preserved immortal ; and that while you see that the fire 
— for I still cling to the simile — is not consumed by the rust 
of the iron. Learn then the mystery. For this cause was 
God in flesh, that he might slay death, hiding itself in it. 
For as an antidote dwelling in the body overcometh what 
is poisonous ; and as the darkness in a house is dispelled 
by the bringing in of light ; even so death ruling over 
human nature was consumed by the presence of the Divi- 
nity. And as in water frost prevails over moisture, while 
night and darkness endure ; but when the sun grows warm 
is melted by his beams ; so death reigned until the com- 
ing of Christ ; but after that the grace of God which bring- 

1 Basil had no idea of the new doctrine, that the Word brought with him a 
Godhead person, hut no Godhead properties. 



398 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



eth salvation appeared, and the Sun of righteousness arose, 
death was swallowed up of victory, not bearing the com- 
ing of the true life.' 1 

1 TiVOi TQOTTOV ZV G OtQTtl 7] SzQTYjg ; 0)g TO ZV G^YjQO)' OV 

fAYiToiQo&Tix,6)gt cOO^cl f^ZT cchoT iK0)g . Ov yot,(i zxt^z^zi 70 7rv ^ 

7T(30g TOV Gt^Yj^OV, {XZVOV ^Z X,MTOl%0)()Ol,V [AZTGlblbodGlV OIVTO) T-f\g 

oixziotg ()vvc&/uzo)g, 07T£^ ovtz zJ\olttovtoii ty\ fteroihotret, xoa 
oAoz/ ttXyiqoi setviov to (AZTzy^ov. KaToc tovto ()yi xoa 6 &zog 
"koyog ovtz zkivyiQyi z% zmvtov, xou zgtcyivo)gzv zv qptv, ovtz tqo- 
7rviy VTrtftuvs. Koci 6 \oyog aot(>% zyzvzTO" ovtz 6 ov^avog zqyi- 
/uog y\v tov GWZ%ovTog, kcci 7) yn zv roig thioig x,o\7?oig tov 
ov^ocviov vitz^z-^zto. kwt&tutowiv TY\g SzoTYjTog zvvoriGYig, 

ov yocQ {aztm^olivzi zx, tottov zig T07ro» o)g rot, go^octcc, f&vfte 

(pdVTOCG^Yig Yik~hOlQduQ(X,l TY[V Sf.OTYJTOl f^ZTGi^YjdziGOiV Ztg GMQXOL' 

cct^z7Ttov yca^ to mOoivoitov. Hcog ovv, (pwat, TYig GO)/uc&TixYig 
&G0zvzisig 6 Qzog Tioyog ovx, zvzttKyigOy} ; (pocpzv, o)g ov^z To ttvq 

T0)V TOV Gl^Yj^OV lhlO)[AO*,TO)V flZTOl'AoiftQoCVZr filhclg 6 (Ti^YlQOg 

xott \j/V)CQog, #AA' 6f&ag ftVQMXTtoQzig ty\v tov itv^og {&0(>(pY)v 

VftohvZTOtl, MVTOg T^MfATr^VVOfiZVOg OV%l [J.Z'XcilVO)V TO 7rV^, K(X,l 

ccvTog zx(p"Kvyov^zvog ovx, oLTCoipv^av ty\v (pTxoya. ovTcog 1)yi xou 

?) dV^0)7nVY] TOV KVQIOV GCt^, OiVTYl ^ZTZG^Z TYIS $Z0TYjT0g, OV TYj 
$Z0TY)Tl /LCZTZ^O)XZ TY\g OlXZlOtg MvQzVZlCig. H OV&Z TO) §VYjTO) TOVTO) 

tovto) ftvgi taojg ^i^o)g zvzqyziv tyiv Ssotyitm, ctKhct, rtotdog kzqi 

TOV Ot7TOt0Yl ZX TY)g CtvQ^O) ft LVY\g Ot,G@ZVZlOtg (pCCVTM^Yl, XC&l MftOQZig 

fto)g v) evCp^ocQTog (pvuig ty\ ftQog Qzov xotvo)vioc shvuotro to c&xy}- 

(iMTOV !)IOIGOJ<7CIO~QoC{, XMt TOLVTOL 0O0)V TO 7TV(> (sTl yOC^ SftOjUOli 

Trig zixovog) to) ta tov aihri^ov {uyi ^ot7rcivo)^zvov ; Moth Sjj to 

plVffTYIQtQV, TOVTO ®£0g SV GOtQXl, IV ZVOtTTOKTZlVYl TOV EftCpCJ- 

'hzvovToc S&vcctov. 'fig yo&g (pot(>f&a,Kav Tot ccT^z^viTYiQict xotTot,- 
zpecTzt tojv (p6a(>Tix,av oiy,zim$zvtcc to) aoi^ctTt' xc&i ojg to evv- 

7TCC^0V TO 01X0) (TKOTOg TYj ZftilGOCy 0)yY) TOV (pO)T0g hVZTMt, 0V- 
TO)g 6 ivbvVOLGTZVO)V TYI MvfyoWiVYj SoiVOtTOg TYj 7ITOC^OVGlOt TY]S, 

SeoTYjTog aCpotviaOYi. Koti ug zv vIocti vrocyog ogov ^zv%^ovov 

VV^ ZGTi K&l GXIM XOtTOlX^ClTZl TO)V VyQO)V, VfalOV ^Z SoChftOVTOg 
V7C0TY\X,ZTCX,l TY1&X.T IV I, 0VTO)g Z%0CGl7\ZVGZ f6ZV 6 SoCVOlTOg ^Z%^1 

ftoc^ovGictg Xoigtov' zrtzihYi l)z zCpuvv} v) %ct,(>ig tov Qzov t) *2o)« 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



399 



In a subsequent part of the same homily, he says, when 
speaking of Joseph and Mary, — 4 Joseph was minded to 
put her away, not because he felt any detestation of her, 
but because he reverenced her as one filled with the Holy 
Ghost. And thence it is manifest that the constitution of 
the Lord was not after the common nature of flesh. For 
what was earned in the womb was immediately perfected, 
and not formed by degrees, as the words plainly declare. 
For it is not said, that which is conceived, but that which 
is born. The flesh, therefore, compacted of holiness, was 
worthy to be united to the Divinity of the only begotten.' 1 

In his treatise against Ennomius, book iv., he decides 
that our Lord could not offer up the prayer, u If it be pos- 
sible, let this cup pass from me," on his own account ; for 
that would have been to accuse himself of fear and weak- 
ness, and to doubt whether there were not something im- 
possible to God. Moreover, he who gave life to the dead 
had no need to ask life of any one. Besides, if he did 
not willingly die, how could it be said that he became 
obedient unto death ? For these reasons, he decides that 
this prayer was offered up for the sake of the Jews, that 
they might be kept from committing the great sin against 
him, which they were meditating; and is similar to his 
prayer on the cross,— " Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do." Did Basil then believe that our 
Lord took fallen sinful flesh, and died by the common pro- 
perty of the flesh to die ? 

TYjQiog, 7cc&i etysT2ihsu 6 v[hiog rrig liixaiOGVv/ig, x,&Ti7roQri 6 Sta- 
varog etg vixog Trig cthri&tuog fasig rr t enZvifAiay ov x, svsyxcjv. — 
Homily xxv. Edition of Paris, 1638. 

1 Kai si/tsvSsv ^v}7i0u on ov x,ara mv xotuYiv (pvviv Trig axp- 
xog 7} uvaraaig eyevero rco x,vpia. ILvSvg yap rzhuov yju 
aoip'sci to xvotyopov^zvov, ov T&ig pccitcc ft,i/C(3ov 'htotTf'hetasat pop- 
(podStv, ag ^yiT^oi pnpoiTot,, ov yap siQ^rett to xvyiSzv, OLKhcz 
to yiWYi^Siv. g| ay loavvyg ovu q <rccp% avftKoiyetva, ct^icc w» 
in Szori rov povoyzvovg haSinvMt. 



400 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



GEEGOEY, Bishop of Nazianzum, 

died in the year 389. Speaking of the absurd and wicked 
names that were applied to Christ, he proceeds to say, in 
language hardly consistent with a due reverence for Scrip- 
ture, — ' But what is more absurd than all these, he is 
called sin itself, and a curse itself ; not that he is so : for 
how can he be sin who sets us free from sin ? or how can 
he be a curse who redeems us from the curse of the law T l 
A little lower he says : — 1 Perhaps he takes sleep, that he 
may bless sleep ,* perhaps he labours, that he may sanctify 
labour ; perhaps he weeps, that he may render weeping 
praise- worthy.' 2 Again, a few lines below, he says : — 
' What he was he humbled, what he was not he assumed ; 
not becoming two, but sustaining of two to become one. 
For he was God as to both, both as to that which as- 
sumes, and as to that which is assumed ; two natures con- 
curring in one, not two sons. Let not this mixture be 
denied.' 3 

1 A'K'hCC KOLl 6 TOVTQiV TTOiUTOiU OCT07TC>)TSpOU, KOti MVTO MpCO&pTlOl 

kcli ocvto KctTo&pot, ovx, ZGTi fAtv, oocovsi^s. Tlcog yotp (kf^OCp- 
noiy 6 kcli vjftoig Trig oiftapTioig thivStpau ; nvcdg lie KcnapcL, 
s^ccyop&fav q/aag sx, ryg Kotrctpocg tov vopov. — Sermon xxxi. 
Edition of Paris, 1609. 

2 Tfit^Si X.MI V7TV0V O^STOtf, hot X,(X,t V7TUOV €V7^0y7}(7Yj. TOCfcCX, 
KOil X,07Tt0l, ha, Kdi TOK K07TOV C(,yiCLGY\. Ttt,%Ct, K(X>t ^CAKpVii ha, 

to }>ce,x,pvov £7rcct'Jsrov oi7repyocaYiroa. 

s O nu exsvtoffs, Kcii 6 ftYj viu e 7rpt}Gi\<x£>2v. ov l)vo yeito/aeuog, 
<&AA' kit ex, rau 'hvo yeuea^oci oci/ocaxo^euog. Seog yxp uptyo- 
repx. to rs irpoo'ha&ov xu,i to wpoaTiviQ&ey. !>vo (pvaeig tig sv 
ovvhp&fAOVvat, ov% viot })vo. pri xoLTotif/eheeSa q avyxpe&Gig. 
In Sermon xlii. he repeats the same thing, that God makes one of two op- 
posite things, flesh and spirit, of which the one deifies, the other is deified. 
Oh unheard of mixture ! Oh wonderful temperament ! the self-existent is 
born, the uncreated is created, {1 TYig Kcttvtig x,dtvYig ftt^ecog, co Ting 
TTotpccho^ov Kpczazcog, 6 cov yiviTctiy 6 UKTtgTog xri&Txt. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



401 



After passages so distinct, it is unnecessary to multiply 
quotations, especially as I have already had occasion to 
show what his opinion was. I shall, therefore, merely 
translate the following lines from Sermon xxxviii., which 
remind me of a remark that I might with advantage have 
made at an earlier period, but which cannot be out of place 
even here ; he says, — 4 Sometimes he is said to have been 
given up, but it is also written that he gave himself ; and he 
is said to have been raised up, and taken up to heaven, but 
he is also said to have raised himself, and to have ascend- 
ed up into heaven. The one mode of expression shows 
his complacency, the other his power. The expressions 
which serve to lessen him, thou layest hold of ; but those 
that exalt him, thou passest over. That he suffered, thou 
reckonest; that it was voluntary, thou forgettest to add.' 
The remark to which I have just referred is, that the re- 
surrection of our Lord is occasionally ascribed to each of 
the persons of the Holy Trinity. This shows the unity of 
the Godhead in all these persons. What one does by the 
power of the Godhead is done by all. But there is a further 
reason for this diversity of expression, which is not acci- 
dental, a supposition inconsistent with the plenary inspira- 
tion of 1 all Scripture.' 

We want to know whether the work of Christ was per- 
fectly satisfactory, and whether we may rely upon it with- 
out a fear. We learn this most clearly and decisively 
from the fact, that God " raised him up from the dead, 
and gave him glory, that our faith and hope might be in 
God." We learn from this, also, not to consider the Son 
as our friend, but the Father as our foe ; a tenet which 
we are falsely reported by some to hold. 

We want to know, also, that the death of Christ was 
perfectly voluntary ; for if it were not so, it could be no 
atonement. We want also to know whether he be per- 
fectly able to secure us in the possession of that spiritual 
life which he bestows upon us. That he raised up himself 
proves this in the most decided manner. For surely his 



402 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



death was perfectly voluntary, — it was by no power of 
death that he died, who could raise himself from the dead. 
Surely him whom death, and he that had the power of 
death, could not keep in the state of the dead, when he was 
in that state, was one whom, when living, they could not 
slay. But his body and his soul existed only in the per- 
son of the Word. Out of that person it were most im- 
pious to suppose that they ever existed for one moment. 
If, then, he could not prevent death from effecting that 
separation between that soul and body which constituted 
the death of Christ, how is it possible to believe that he 
can prevent death from reigning over us ? We surely can- 
not be u in Christ" more intimately, we cannot be united 
to him more closely, than his own humanity. If it was 
his own divine will to pour out that soul unto death, and 
to give that body to the tomb, while both subsisted indis- 
solubly still in him, then can we repose ourselves upon 
him with the most delightful confidence, that none can 
ever pluck us out of his hands. Then also shall our flesh 
rest in hope, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the re- 
demption of the body. Then shall we, without a fear, con- 
sign these earthly tabernacles to the tomb, assured that 
even our bodies are still united to Christ, and shall rest in 
the grave till we shall hear the voice that says, " Awake, 
O thou that dwellest in the dust, arise, shine, for thy light 
is come, and the glory of the Lord has risen upon thee." 
That Christ raised up himself, and thus showed that death 
had never any power either to take or to keep his life, is 
to us the firm assurance of all these happy hopes. He 
that could raise up himself from the dead could assuredly 
never die, but because he pleased, and how he pleased, 
and when he pleased. 

We want to know that there is a power that can quicken 
us who are dead in trespasses and in sins, and that can 
repress those corruptions, with regard to which we often 
feel as if they were so interwoven with every t thought, and 
every emotion, as to render the idea of ever escaping from 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



403 



their contaminating influence utterly hopeless. How 
often, looking into our own hearts, do we feel disposed to 
ask in the spirit of despondency, 44 Can these dry bones 
live ?" Thanks be to God they can, for the Holy Spirit 
of God raised up the Lord Jesus Christ from the dead ; 
and the working of that mighty power which he wrought 
in Christ when he raised him from the dead, assures us of 
the exceeding greatness of his power toward those who 
believe. The Spirit raised up the Lord, and, therefore, 
there is none dead whom he cannot quicken, and none 
bound with a chain of corruption which he cannot break, 
and none stained with a depth of pollution which he can- 
not convert into purity. " If Christ be in you, the body 
is dead because of sin ; but the Spirit is life because of 
righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up 
Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ 
from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies, by 
his Spirit that dwelleth in you." 1 

GREGORY, Bishop of Nyssa in Cappadocia, 

died in the year 395. In his seventh Sermon on Ecclesi- 
astes, he says, — 4 It belongs to the Lord alone to have 
none of the things of the adversary, being made a partaker 
of our affections without sin ; for he saith, " The prince of 
this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." ' 2 The whole 
of his Catechetical Oration may be referred to, but I can- 
not afford room for the extracts which it furnishes. I 
may merely remark, that in chapter x. he asks, 4 Who is 
there that saith that the infinite Divinity is circumscribed 
by the flesh as by some vessel ? Even our own intelligent 
nature is not circumscribed by the flesh.' In chapter xii. 
he proves the Divinity of our Lord from his miracles, and 

1 Rom. viii. 10. 

2 Aio to (A*/\bzv sa^yj'^suoci tcju tov ocvTrixsipeyov KT^^otTou 
t uovov tov Kvgiov eart, tov f^SToca^ouTog qpiv toju olvtuv- 
7Toi$Yif&MT6)u X&Qi$ a/augTiecg. — Vol. I. p. 444. Paris, 1615. 



404 



PARTICULAR, TESTIMONIES. 



from this that he was more powerful than death and coi - 
niption, which belongs to God alone. The whole of chap- 
ter xiii. is to prove the superiority of our Lord to us, from 
this, that we begin zx, naSov g, and end ii> naSu, while he 
did not. In chapter xxiv. he- says, 4 The Divinity united to 
human nature becomes this, and is that.' In chapter xxxii., 
as also in other parts of his writings, he gives the usual 
exposition of the figure of the cross, applying to it the 
texts, Ephes. iii. 18, and Psalm cxxxix. 8. He speaks 
frequently of the mixing of the two natures in Christ, a 
mode of expression the danger of which was not then seen, 
but which no man could use who imagined the humanity 
of Christ to be sinful. I prefer, however, taking the fol- 
lowing passage from his first Sermon on the Resurrection ; 
and as it is long, I shall give the original only where it 
seems to be necessary. In answer to the inquiry, how 
Christ could be at the same time in the grave, with the 
Fathers in Hades, and with the thief in Paradise, he first 
refers to his power of being everywhere, as God, and then 
proceeds thus : — 

c But I have learned another reason of this, which, with 
your leave, I shall shortly explain. When the Holy Spirit 
came upon the Virgin, and the power of the Highest over- 
shadowed her, it was that a new man might be constituted 
in her, who is for this reason called new;, that he was cre- 
ated — exli(r§Y} — by God. Not according to human custom, 
that he might be the house of God not made with hands. 
For the Most High dwells not in houses made with hands, 
that is, in the works of man. Then wisdom building a 
house, and by the overshadowing of power as by the im- 
pression of a seal formed within, 1 the Divine power was 
tempered with both the parts of which human nature con- 
sists, that is, with both soul and body, having mingled it- 

1 Tors ccvrotg rou olxou rng ao(piotg otxohofAOvaYis, x,dt to rrn 
ovv&fteojg qlttogkioig fA&Ti otovst rwrco eQg&ythos svhoSsv xcltc*, 
f<,o$(p6)§ei/Tog, X,. T. A. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



405 



self in a suitable manner with each. 1 As, therefore, each 
part was dead through disobedience, (for the death of the 
soul is to be separated from the true life, and the death of 
the body is corruption and dissolution,) it was necessary 
that the mixture of life with both these should expel death, 
The Divinity, therefore, being mingled in a suitable man- 
ner with each of the parts of the man,, the manifest indi- 
cations of the supereminent nature appeared in both, 
For the body showed the Divinity in it, curing diseases 
with a touch. The soul manifested the Divine power by 
its powerful will. For as the sense of touch is peculiar 
to the body, so is a choosing will to the soul. 2 The 
leper approaches with a body already dissolved and con- 
sumed ; and how is he healed by the Lord ? The soul 
wills : the body touches : by each the disease is expelled ; 
for immediately, as it is written, the leprosy left him, 3 Again, 
when so many thousands sat with him in the wilderness, 
to send them away fasting he wills not. With his hands 
he breaks the bread. You see how the Divinity united 
to each part declares itself by both, while the body acts 
and the soul wills. But why should I go over each of 
the miracles performed in the same way, spending words 
on what is manifest ? Therefore, let us return to the subject 
on account of which I mention these things. The ques- 
tion is — How was the Lord at the same time in Hades 
and in Paradise ? Of this question one solution is, that no 
place is impervious to God, in whom all things consist. 
Another solution is that to which our discourse now tends, 
namely, that God, having changed the whole man into the 
divine nature by his mixture with him, at the time of 
his death departed not from either part of the man whom 
he had assumed, for the gifts of God are without repent - 

1 'FiXOtTSOO) Y,tt,T&Khr[htog SC6VTY1V XOLTUfAl^OLGX. 

3 There is nothing in the Greek answering to the words in italics. Some- 
thing has evidently dropped out of the sentence, which is supplied as above, 
by Zinus. 



406 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



ance. 1 The Divinity did, of its own will, disjoin the soul 
from the body, but showed itself to be remaining in both. 
For by the body, into which he admitted not that corrup- 
tion which comes by death, he destroyed him that had the 
power of death. By the soul, he opened a passage for the 
thief into Paradise. Both were accomplished at once, the 
Divinity affecting the good through both, — through the in- 
coiTuption of the body the destruction of death ; and 
through the soul brought to its own home, opened a way 
for man to Paradise. Since then the composition of man 
is twofold, but the nature of the Divinity is simple and 
one, in the time of the separation of the soul and body, 
that which is indivisible was not separated ; but rather by 
the unity of the Divine nature, being equally in both parts 
of the man, 2 they which were separated were again united. 
And thus, as death follows from the separation of what 
had been joined ; so, from the junction of what had been 
separated comes the resurrection.' 3 

That some slight error is here mingled with important 
truth, I may admit ; but both the error and the truth are 
directly opposed to that tenet which teaches that the flesh 
of our Lord was fallen sinful flesh up to the moment of 
his resurrection ; flesh dying by the common property of 
flesh to die. 

AMPHILOCIUS, Bishop of Iconium, 

died about the year 395. In his Sermon on the Mother 
of God, he denies the name of Christian to any one who 

1 On oAo:/ rov a,u§()6>)7rov rov ®so_v, (ita rvig ft^og ketvrov 
avoDtQcujwg, zig ryu Ssiccv (pvaiu fAZTMotzvoLGOLUTog, su to) 
xMigM TYjg xarcx, to no&og oiKOuofAic&g ov Saregov fis^ovg to 

2 Trig yocQ zuotyiti rvjg §ao?,g (pvvsag, ryg xocrot, to iaou sv 
xfttpQTSgoig ovvYig. 

3 Vol. II. p. 823. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



407 



denies that Mary was made like Eve in her unfallen state ; 
and says that as fire purges out the rust of iron, so the 
Holy Spirit perfectly purged out all evil from Mary. From 
him one sentence may suffice. 4 He is truly impious, and 
alienated from the truth, who does not say that the Saviour 
and Maker of all, according to both natures of which he 
consists, has all power and efficacy, and is free from all 
necessity.' 1 I observe, too, that at page 81, he applies 
the text, "Free among the dead," to Christ, as Cyril of 
Jerusalem also does ; misapplying the text, indeed, yet 
using it to express an undeniable truth ; for Christ most 
certainly was " free among the dead," going to death, and # 
returning from it when he pleased. 

AMBKOSE, Bishop of Milan, 

died in the year 396. The manner in which he proves 
that the Holy Spirit is to be worshipped is as follows : — 
4 But the apostles and angels adore not only his Divinity, 
but also his footstool, as it is written, "Worship ye his 
footstool, for it is holy." Or, if they deny that in Christ 
even the mysteries of the Incarnation are to be adored, in 
which we observe certain traces of the Divinity, and cer- 
tain ways of the heavenly Word, let them read that even 
the apostles adored him rising in the glory of the flesh.' 
But then nothing is to be worshipped but God alone, how 
then are we commanded to worship his footstool? He, 
therefore, proceeds to inquire what this footstool, which 
we are commanded to worship, is ; and he finds that it is 
the earth : for it is written, " Heaven is my throne, and 
earth is my footstool." But then neither are we to worship 
the earth, which is only the creature of God. Having 

1 AffsQvig our cog earn, zat ttqs othrftuoig a\7^or^iog, 6 y.ri 
Xsycov rou ^cfivjgoc rait oT^au kui sto/ijtij^ xar oc t u^a ratu sj 
ojv iari K&rcx, (pvaiu, avre^ovatoit, xcct svsgyri, zca Trccayg ccvccy- 
Kng foev&egQ!/. — Dogmatic Epistle to Pancharius, p. 155. Paris. 1644. 



408 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



got so far, he thus goes on : — 4 But let us see if the prophet 
do not say that that earth is to be adored which the Lord 
Jesus took in his assumption of flesh. Therefore, by the 
footstool, earth is meant, and by earth, the flesh of Christ, 
which we still adore in the mysteries, and which the 
apostles adored in the Lord Jesus, as we have said above. 
For neither is Christ divided, but one ; nor when he is 
adored as the Son of God, is he who was born of the Vir- 
gin denied. Since, then, the sacrament of the Incarnation 
is to be adored, but the Incarnation is the work of the 
Spirit, as it is written, " The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow 
thee ; and that which shall be born of thee holy, shall be 
called the Son of God without doubt, the Holy Spirit is 
to be adored, when he is adored who, according to the 
flesh, was born of the Holy Spirit.' 1 

The same doctrine he elsewhere teaches thus — 1 But it 
is to be feared, you say, lest, if we should attribute to 
Christ two principal senses, or a double wisdom, we should 
divide Christ. Do we divide Christ when we adore both 
his Divinity and his flesh ? When we venerate in him the 

1 Adorant autem non solum divinitatem ejus, sed etiam scabellum pedum 
ejus, sicut scriptum est ; et adorate scabellum pedum ejus ; quoniam sanctum 
est. Aut si negant quia in Christo etiam incarnationis adoranda mysteria 
sint, in quiuus velut vestigia qusedam clivinitatis expressa, et vias quasdam 
verbi coelestis advertimus ; legant quia et apostoli adorabant eum in carnis 
gloria resurgentem. 

Videamus tamen ne terram illam dicat adorandum propheta, quam Domi- 
nus Jesus in carnis adsumptione suscepit. Itaque per scabellum terra intelli- 
gitur : per terram autem caro Christi, quam hodieque in mysteriis adoramus, 
et quam apostoli in Domino Jesu, ut supra discimus, adorarunt ; neque enim 
divisus est Christus, sed unus ; neque cum adoratur tarn quam Dei Filius, 
natus ex Virgine denegatur. Cum igitur incarnationis adorandum sit sacra- 
mentum, incarnatio autem opus Spiritus, sicut scriptum est, Spiritus Sanctus 
superveniet in te, et virtus Altissimi obumbrdbit tibi : et quod nascetur ex te sanc- 
tum, vocabitur Filius Dei : haud dubie etiam Sanctus Spiritus adorandus est ; 
quando adoratur ille, qui secundum carnem natus ex Spiritu Sancto est — De 
Spiritu Sancto, Lib. iii. Cap. 11, Sect. 76 et 79. Benedictine Edition, Paris, 
1690 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



409 



image of God and the cross, do we divide him ?' ] &c. He 
is treating of our Lord's growth in wisdom. He says that 
he grew in it only as a man ; an interpretation of the text 
which is contrary to that of most of the Fathers, and which 
afterwards came to be deemed little less than heretical. 
And, indeed, he himself, in his treatise Be Fide, Lib. v. 
Cap. 18, plainly intimates his dislike of it, and says that 
Christ so loved his apostles that he chose to appear igno- 
rant of some things rather than tell them what he judged 
it was not proper for them to know. Hence, his Bene- 
dictine editors suppose that he only uses that interpreta- 
tion here for the convenience of refuting heretics, and not 
because he himself approved of it. 

In another place, quoting the text Rom. viii. 3, he ob- 
serves, — 4 He does not say, in the likeness of flesh, because 
Christ took the reality, not the likeness of flesh ; neither 
does he say, in the likeness of sin, because he did no sin, 
but was made sin for us ; but he came in the likeness of 
flesh of sin, that is, he took the likeness of sinful flesh ; 
and, therefore, the likeness, because it is written, " He is 
a man, and who shall know him ? " 2 He was a man in 
the flesh, according to man who might be known ; in power 
above a man, who could not be known ; so that he has 
our flesh, but has not the blemishes of this flesh.' 3 In 

1 Sed verendum est, inquis, ne si duos principales sensus aut geminam 
sapientiam Christo tribuinms, Christum dividimus. Numquid cum et divini- 
tatem ejus adoramus et carnem, Christum dividimus ? Numquid cum in eo 
imaginem Dei, crucemque veneramur, dividimus eum ? — Be Incarnationis 
Dominicce Sacramento, Cap* vii. Sect. 75. This I consider as being, upon the 
whole, the very best treatise on the Incarnation that I have seen. 

2 Kat ocv$p6>'7rog salt, xcti Itg yvaoflui uvlou ; Jeremiah xvii. 
9, Septuagint translation. 

3 Non in similitudinem carnis ait, quia Christus veritatem suscepit carnis 
humanse, non simihtudinem ; neque in similitudinem peccati ait, quia pec- 
catum non fecit, sed peccatum pro nobis factus est : sed venit in similitudi- 
nem carnis peccati; hoc est, suscepit similitudinem carnis peccatricis ; ideo 
similitudinem, quia scriptum est : Et homo est, et quis agnoscet eum ? Homo 
erat in carne secundum hominem, qui agnosceretur : virtute supra hominem 

S 



410 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



the following section he goes on to show that he differed 
from us in not being conceived in iniquity, and born in 
sin, as we are, and concludes by saying, c The flesh of 
Paul was a body of death, as he himself says, " Who shall 
deliver me from the body of this death ?" But the flesh 
of Christ condemned sin, which, in being born, he did not 
feel ; and which, in dying, he crucified ; that in our flesh 
there might be a justification through grace there, where 
formerly there had been impurity through sin.'! 

EPIPHAKEUS, Bishop of Salamis, 

died in the second or third year of the fifth century. The 
following decisive testimony I give in the original, without 
venturing to translate it. Avro to aupoi ochn^iuag, avlriv 
cretpxoi, uvlnu 1y)v $v%yiv, uvlcc lot, Tocifjot, ovx, aXXo It tfotpct lo 
ou o-aptot, ctXX 5 etvlo lo ov tuhvuot^cdaocg, stg piou* h^liflet, etg 
pctotv Seolvfict, lo aoigxixQi/ ct,(p$ciplov t lo aa^ocltKOu itvio^oCitx^ov, 
lo zsc&xvpiepeg Ks7rlof&epeg, lo Suvflo aSavoilov, /uyi kcopxxog oXag 
!)ici<p$opoii/, ptYi x.MToi'AeitpSstffYig Tvjg tyv-fing eu kIv}, /ay (Atpiv- 
Seifloglov opyocvov vrpog ct/actpliciv, %potv§iv\og lov vovlp07ry, 
k. t. *. 2 In this manner he goes on at considerable length, 
teaching the deification of the humanity in terms stronger 
than will readily be met with elsewhere. 

In Heresy lxxvii. p. 1010, in answer to an objection of 
the heretics, of which he justly reprobates the folly, and 

qui non agnosceretur ; ita et hie carnem habet nostram, sed carnis hujus 
vitia non habet. — De Pcenitentia, Lib. i. Cap. 3, Sec. 12. 

1 Panli caro corpus mortis erat, sicut ipse ait ; Quis me liberabit de corpore 
mortis hvjus ? Christi autem caro damnavit peccatum, quod nascendo non 
sensit, quod moriendo crucifixit; ut in carne nostra esset justificatio per 
gratiam, ubi erat ante colluvio per culpam. — Augustine, Contra Julianum, 
Lib. ii. Cap. 4, renders the expression more definite thus, nascendo non sensit 
in se, moriendo crucifixit in nobis. The Pelagian heresy taught Augustine to 
add these explanatory words to the expression of Ambrose, in order to mark 
more distinctly the difference between our flesh and that of Christ, 

2 Against Heresies, Book I. p. 49. Paris, 1622. 



PARTICULAB TESTIMONIES. 



411 



which, without being urged by a stronger necessity than 
I feel at present, I should think it improper to notice, he 
very distinctly declares his view of the nature of our 
Lord's body ; and that in a manner which, as well as the 
passage just quoted, might well have afforded farther ma- 
terials to Priestley for giving a colour to his charge of 
Gnosticism against the Fathers. Nay, he seems to think 
that even the bodies of the apostles were raised above the 
condition of humanity, for he says, — 4 It is confessed by 
all that the holy apostles were men, corruptible as to 
their body, as we are, but incorruptible by the glory of 
God dwelling in them, so that the shadow of Peter, and 
handkerchiefs from the body of Paul, cured diseases.' 1 

CHRYSOSTOM, Bishop of Constantinople, 

died in exile in the year 407. I have no occasion here to 
make any lengthened quotations from the voluminous 
writings of this celebrated Father. Many of the fond and 
superstitious notions which then began to corrupt the 
purity and simplicity of Christian doctrine are to be found 
in his pages. He talks of the cross in a style in which 
we are not now permitted to speak of the flesh of him who 
hung upon it. Nay, he assures us that our Lord took it 
with him to heaven, and will bring it with him again at 
his second coming, and that the obscuration of the sun, 
moon, and stars, at that day, is to arise from their light 
being completely overpowered and outshone by the su- 
perior brightness of the cross. 2 It is true that he else- 
where makes a statement apparently inconsistent with 

1 Ucuri yotp afto'hoyyicci, S]i 6t AttggtqT^oi tkyioi wj&paTrot 
YiaotUf (pSc&plot let uaftoTiet qpetg, a(p§oiploi Is lyy woi- 
kyigolv c&xTlots ®eov liQ^av.— See Note N- 

2 Sermon on the Penitent Thie£ Sermon xxxii., Vol. V., Edition of Fronto 
Ducseus, Paris, 1636. 



412 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



this exaltation of the cross ; for he tells us that both men 
and women who could obtain a piece of the cross cased it 
in gold, and wore it round their necks as a charm ; a 
practice which he seems more inclined to boast of than to 
blame. 1 After this the reader will not be surprised to 
hear him proclaiming the praises of Mary in the loftiest 
strains, and maintaining her perfect sinlessness. He says, 
' The angel Gabriel was sent to a virgin, that he might 
change into honour the reproach of the female sex ; 
Gabriel was sent that he might prepare a bridal chamber 
worthy of a pure bridegroom ; Gabriel was sent that he 
might espouse the creature to the Creator; Gabriel was sent 
to the living palace of the King of angels ; Gabriel was 
sent to a virgin, espoused indeed to Joseph, but reserved 
for the Son of God ; the incorporeal servant was sent to a 
pure virgin ; he who was free from sin, was sent to her 
who was incapable of corruption,' &c. 2 He who enter- 
tained such an idea of Mary, of course could not suppose 
that she communicated fallen sinful wicked flesh to the 
Son whom she conceived by the Holy Ghost. Accord- 
ingly, in the Sermon on the Nativity, he thus describes 
the flesh of Christ, — 1 But this we say, that Christ took 
flesh of the virgin's womb, pure, and holy, and spotless, 
and inaccessible to all sin ; and restored his own work- 
manship.' 3 By the restoration of his own workmanship 
here, I understand the restoration in himself of that sin- 
less unfallen humanity which he had created in Adam, 
and Satan had corrupted. This is more clearly expressed 
in another place, where, treating of the varied forms of 

1 On the Divinity of Christ, Chapter ix. 

2 h.'Kia'rctkvi 6 ufiotplietg ttevSepog npog %u (pSopoig ave- 
t/^sjcIou.— Sermon on the Annunciation, Vol. VI., p. 356. 

3 E^g/z/o lie (pufizv, 61 1 xotSoipoiv aapxoc, x,ai tzyioiv, x,oci 
dftuftov, x.ott x/^oiplioc u7rocav} yeyevYj/aevyiv ot&oflov ex, ncLp- 
SsvixYig pcvflpocg ctvzhot&tv 6 'KptTog i xot'j lo oikuov ZiapStoffoflo 
TrhoMr ft s&.— Vol. VI., Sermon xxxi. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



413 



corruption which had resulted from the fall, he says, — 
4 When, therefore, this image, as we have already said, 
was variously corrupted and dissolved, the Saviour came 
and again raised up his own image ; and what the devil 
destroyed, that the Creator bore, being made man ; not 
injuring his dignity, but showing his love to men.' 1 On 
the following page, after remarking that the Lord armed 
himself with an earthly and weak body, he quotes the 
text, "The weakness of God is stronger than men," and 
then proceeds thus, — £ The Lord put on strength, that is, 
the dispensation shining through the flesh; for what is 
more powerful, or what is stronger than that precious and 
holy flesh ? For by the body he defeated the incorporeal 
and malignant demons ; and by the cross he triumphed 
over the adverse powers.' 2 

He often and earnestly contends that the death of our 
Lord was perfectly voluntary. This he does especially in 
Sermon vii. vol. v. upon the words, " Father, if it be pos- 
sible, let this cup pass from me." He assigns two reasons 
for the prayer. The one is, that as he permitted his body 
to hunger and thirst, so he prayed also in order to prove 
that he was truly a man. This it will be admitted is a 
very good reason, provided it be allowed that our Lord's 
fear was real. Whether Chrysostom allowed this, seems 

1 E-TTg; ovu ?} if/cau kvIyi ^toKpopcog, ojg tty§Yi{6iv unoiftig, 
stySoiplo xoit B/#AgAi/7o, YfhStv 6 Icolnp x,ut Inu ioiotv ZlXQVCt, 

iaev 6 Ayftiovpyog civ§p6)7rog, 6 yeyopsvog (pfcavSpto'XQg ; cv 
lyv cc^totu otAAfifc 7w> (pi7^sx>v^po)7:iotu 6pi^o)v. — Vol 

VI. Sermon ii. 

2 Ej/gWcfc7o Kvpiog livvafAiv, lov7 t?i liict, %g <7e&pxog a,uoc- 
Kot pip our out oixovofttctv. ti yap ixuvng r \r\g lipiag kcli dying 
aotpKog ^vuoClcSlipov ; ti !)e t(r%vpQT6pov ; ^tot> yotp aa/uoiTog rovg 
ccdco^ocTOvg xcct tfovYipovg (ioct/uouc&g xaTlYiyoviaG&lo, xoti (iisc 
<sOLVpov lag ctyltzstpsvoig ^vvxpcsig £§p{ot,ft£zv<re. 



414 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES, 



doubtful. His other reason is, that our Saviour might, 
by his own example, teach his disciples never rashly to 
encounter dangers that they could avoid. In the same 
Sermon, he uses the expression that our Lord prayed ac- 
cording to the humanity, and not according to the Di- 
vinity. I mention this, as he is the earliest author in 
whom I recollect to have met with that distinction, a dis- 
tinction which was certainly calculated to prepare the way 
for that Nestorianism, which, at a somewhat later period, 
was introduced into the Church of Constantinople. 

I have done. It could hardly answer any good purpose 
to trace the notions of the writers of more recent ages. 
There were giants among them ; but with the funda- 
mental truths of the Gospel, the generality of them mingled 
a mass of superstition which it is painful to contemplate, 
preparing the way for all the usurpations of Rome, and all 
the gloom of the dark ages. That I have made no mistakes 
in traversing a field so extensive, and in many instances 
so obscure and perplexed, is perhaps more than can be 
reasonably expected, especially considering the disadvan- 
tages of various kinds under which I have laboured. 1 I 
can only say that I have taken all possible pains to avoid 
mistakes, and I trust that at least none will be found of 
such magnitude as materially to affect the force of the 
reasonings employed, or the weight of the testimonies ad- 
duced. And if these reasonings, and these testimonies, be 
found to be substantially correct, they may be expected 
to exculpate me, and those who think with me upon this 
subject, from the charge of a criminal carelessness as to 
what the Scriptures teach upon it, and an equally criminal 
disregard to their authority. They will show that I am not 
altogether destitute either of primitive precedent or of Scrip- 

1 When I mention these disadvantages, I onght not to omit mentioning 
the kindness of two dignitaries of the Church, as well as that of another 
clergyman, which, though it could not remove, did very much lessen them, 
and greatly facilitated my progress. 



PARTICULAR TESTIMONIES. 



415 



ture authority, when, looking to my Kedeeiner, not merely 
in the hour of his triumph, as ascending up on high, he led 
captivity captive ; but looking to him in the lowest scene 
of his deep humiliation, and in the darkest hour of his 
most painful agony, I am disposed, without one feeling 
of hesitation, and without one misgiving thought, to 
bow the knee before him, and to say, " My Lord and 
my God." 



THE END. 



APPENDIX. 



Note A. Page 11. 

The declaration, " In the day thou eatest thereof, thou 
shalt surely die," has, from the beginning, given rise to a 
considerable variety of opinion. Irenasus, Lib. V. Cap. 
xxiii., gives five different explanations of it, which had 
been advanced even at so early an age. The first is, that 
our first parents died on the day that they sinned, because 
the very act of disobedience was death. The second is, 
that on that day they became debtors to death. The 
third is, that the whole period of creation is but a day ; 
and if, therefore, they died before the end of the world, 
they died on the day on which they transgressed. The 
fourth is, that they died on the same day of the week on 
which they had sinned, and might therefore be justly said 
to have died on the day on which they sinned. The 
fifth is, that as " one day is with the Lord as a thousand 
years, and a thousand years as one day," therefore, if the}^ 
died within a thousand years, they died on the day on 
which they sinned. Perhaps I may be excused if I offer 
my own view of a text which, at so early a period, gave 
rise to such a variety of interpretations, and upon which 
I know not if modern expositors have produced any thing 
more satisfactory. My opinion coincides more nearly with 
the first of these interpretations than with any of the rest. 

s 2 



418 



APPENDIX. 



I conceive that in the very act of sinning, Adam died, and 
died to the full extent of that death which was threat- 
ened. He lost that image of God, that perfect conformity 
to God, and confidence in him, which constituted his life. 
He might still have continued to exist, as appears from 
the necessity of debarring him from the tree of life, "lest 
he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of 
life, and eat, and live for ever." I conceive then that 
when it was said, u In the day thou eatest, thou shalt 
surely die," spiritual death alone was intended. In this 
sense I think it would be understood by the angels who 
saw man created, and heard the sentence pronounced. 
Of that temporal death which results from the separation 
of the constituent parts of man, they can hardly be sup- 
posed to have had any idea. As little could they see 
what purpose could be answered by such a separation, if 
it was to be, as they must have understood the death 
threatened to be, eternal ; for at that moment they could 
form no idea of redemption. Man might then have ex- 
isted, even after the sentence of death which had been 
pronounced as the consequence of disobedience had actu- 
ally been inflicted ; but then he would have existed only 
as an immortal sinner, that is, a devil. I feel fully dis- 
posed, therefore, to adopt the opinion of Gregory Nyssen, 
that temporal death was introduced after the fall as a be- 
nefit, that evil might not be eternal. 1 That death and 
natural evil are really evils and of a penal nature, I most 
readily grant : but I must consider them also as benefits, 
when I consider them as the means through which we 
escape a worse evil, — an immortal existence in guilt and 
in misery. Death was necessary to the introduction of 
redemption. 

This view I am the more disposed to adopt, that it 
effectually evacuates the Arminian interpretation of the 
sentence pronounced upon Adam after the fall. He is 



1 Catechetical Oration, Cap. iiL 



APPENDIX. 



419 



doomed to return to the dust, and to the endurance of 
natural evil : whence it has been argued that temporal 
death and natural evil are the only consequences of the 
fall ; for these alone are mentioned in the sentence pro- 
nounced upon Adam after he fell. But that more than 
this has been inflicted, and that all the seed of Adam are 
spiritually dead, " dead in trespasses and sins," I think 
undeniable. Yet this death is not pronounced upon Adam 
after he fell ; for this reason, that it had been already actu- 
ally inflicted. Temporal death and natural evil were de- 
nounced, and denounced apparently as something perfectly 
unexpected by Adam ; and denounced, as it afterwards 
appeared, as the commencement of a dispensation of 
mercy. That Adam had actually died before he was 
doomed to return to the dust, and that this latter death 
was really a mitigation of the former, is plain I think 
from the fact, that he had seen his own nakedness, and 
fled from the face of the Lord. This was surely death. 
And with Adam died the whole of his offspring in the 
very act of his disobedience. So far, then, is it from being 
true that temporal death and natural evil are the only 
consequences of the fall, that the fact is, these were in- 
troduced as the first step toward the introduction of a dis- 
pensation which was to make the fall the means of that 
glorious manifestation of the divine perfections which 
Christianity affords. 

These views are not essential to, nor even intimately 
connected with, the train of argument pursued in the text ; 
and I throw them out rather as suggestions to be examin- 
ed, than as opinions to be adopted. Should they be found 
to involve any serious error, I shall relinquish them with- 
out reluctance. 



Note B. Page 29. 
From what is said in the text, it will be seen that I can- 



420 



APPENDIX. 



not believe that the Millennium is to be introduced by 
miracles. Our Saviour worked miracles, and referred to 
them as proofs of his divine mission. The same attesta- 
tion was given to the Apostles, the " Holy Ghost bearing 
them witness with signs and wonders, and mighty works." 
While they were necessary for the purpose of establishing 
Christiauity, they were continued in the Church, but were 
gradually withdrawn as they became gradually less neces- 
sary for this purpose. That they were always to con- 
tinue in the Church has been asserted. I cannot think so. 
I can find no promise to that effect ; and I can discover 
no beneficial purpose which such a promise could answer. 
It appears to me that the J ew has just as good reason to 
expect that miracles may be wrought in confirmation of 
Judaism, as we have to expect that they shall be wrought 
in confirmation of Christianity. The Church of Home has 
indeed always laid claim to them ; and the early history of 
most new sects records abundance of them. I view them 
in both cases with a degree of suspicion amounting to un- 
qualified incredulity, for the following reasons ; reasons 
which I shall merely state, without entering into either 
illustration or defence of them. 

Miracles cannot now be required for the establishment 
of Christianity. It would imply a defect not only in the 
evidences of Christianity, but a defect in Christianity it- 
self, to suppose that they can now be required as evidence 
of its divine origin. If, therefore, they be now employed 
at all, they must be employed for the introduction of a 
new dispensation. But that no new dispensation will 
ever be established, may be argued on many grounds upon 
which I cannot here enter. I may mention only the fol- 
lowing. The Christian dispensation is one of unimprove- 
able perfection. We cannot have clearer instructions 
given to us than are given to us in the Gospel, which 
makes the path of life so plain, that the wayfaring man, 
though a fool, shall not err therein. We cannot have ad- 
dressed to us more urgent motives, than eternal misery 



APPENDIX. 



421 



on the one hand, and eternal happiness on the other, — 
that wrath of God which is revealed against all unright- 
eousness of men, and that life and immortality which are 
brought clearly to light through Christ in the Gospel. We 
cannot have these instructions more impressively taught, 
or these motives more powerfully enforced, than they are 
by the cross of Christ. No dispensation can communi- 
cate to the Christian greater power than that which is 
given to him by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which 
leaves no limit whatever to his power, but enables him to 
say, "I live ; nevertheless not I, but Christ liveth in me," 
and " I can do all things through Christ who strengthen- 
ed me." No dispensation can give us more perfect se- 
curity that every promise of God will be fulfilled, and that 
the believer shall in nowise lose his reward, but shall be 
infallibly u kept through faith unto salvation," than is 
given to us by the death of our Lord Jesus Christ ; for 
this, I think, is the strongest of all possible arguments, " If 
God spared not his own Son, but freely gave him up to 
death for us all, how much more will he not with him also 
give us all things ?" I cannot admit, therefore, that the 
Christian dispensation is susceptible of improvement ; nor, 
consequently, can I admit that it is ever to be superseded 
by any other dispensation. Miracles, therefore, I conceive 
to be no longer called for. 

Besides, if the MiHennium is to be introduced by, or to 
bring with it, any means of grace which we do not now 
enjoy, the conclusion seems inevitable that the reason why 
Christianity has not triumphed over the whole world long 
ago, is to be found in its own intrinsic weakness and im- 
perfection. The Millennium in this case must be not the 
triumph of the Gospel, but an open proclamation of its insuffi- 
ciency — a disannulling of it " for the weakness and unprofit - 
ableness thereof." To the infidel, therefore, who wishes 
to overturn Christianity, I apprehend no better weapon can 
be given ; and to the careless sinner who despises it, no 
better news can be brought, than the doctrine which teaches 



422 APPENDIX. 

that the Millennium is to provide us with means of grace 
which the Gospel does not furnish us with. The Millennium 
I understand to be the triumph of Christianity, and to be 
introduced for the purpose of proving its sufficiency — of 
proving that the reason why it meets with such partial 
success now is, that men do not acknowledge their depen-^ 
dence upon God for all that is good, and will not seek the 
Spirit of the Lord : but that when he puts forth his power, 
the very means that have been so long and so generally 
opposed shall prove abundantly efficacious. But let the 
Millennium bring with it some more powerful means of 
grace, if such there can be, than the Gospel furnishes, and 
then the conclusion must be, that the superior holiness of 
that state must be attributed, not to a more abundant out- 
pouring of the Holy Spirit, but to the superior efficacy of 
the means employed. If this be true, then the insuffi- 
ciency of the Gospel is proved. And if it be true, as some 
teach us, that during the Millennium men are to be saved 
by their own righteousness, then the Gospel is proved to 
be not only insufficient, but false. When with these views 
I combine the fact, that a pretension to the working of 
miracles so plausible, and bearing such a semblance of 
reality, as to " deceive, if it were possible, the very elect," 
is one of the predicted precedents of our Lord's advent, I 
cannot help both hailing the pretensions to the working of 
miracles at present advanced, as a sign that the coming of 
the Lord draweth nigh, and regarding the pretensions 
themselves as groundless. That the Lord will make bare 
his holy arm in the eyes of all nations, — that prayer will 
become more earnest and of a more believing character, 
and that the answers to it will be more distinctly visible, 
— that the interposition of Divine providence in the affairs 
of men will be more fully recognised, and will, therefore, 
be more clearly seen, and more visibly exercised, I cannot 
doubt. But as little can I doubt that every one who has 
taken an intelligent survey of the history of man, and has 
seen how both the millennial glory and the following apos- 



APPENDIX. 



423 



tacy, are only completing the demonstration given by that 
history, that in every state the creature is dependent upon 
God for all good, will see the necessity of guarding against 
the admission of the reality of any miracle, however plau- 
sible may be its appearance. For if the Millennium be a 
new dispensation, then not only was John wrong in de- 
claring this to be " the last time," but the new dispensa- 
tion, instead of carrying on and completing the demonstra- 
tion of that great truth, for the establishment of which 
man was made, and all the changes in his history arranged 
— nullifies that proof as far as Christianity is concerned, 
proving its insufficiency ; and must be introduced and fol- 
lowed by an apostacy for the purpose of proving something 
else than that which the whole past history of man has 
been proving. What this may be it is useless to conjec- 
ture. 

These slight hints, into any particular explanation or 
defence of which this is not the place to enter, may be suf- 
ficient to induce the reader to be on his guard against 
being misled by seeming miracles. 

Note C. Page 30. 

The following note upon this text, by a clergyman of 
the Episcopal Church, I think deserves to be transcribed 
here. 

' The Incarnation of our Lord is here declared to be ef- 
fected by the power of the Most High. Seeing, therefore, 
it is supernatural and the work of Omnipotence, nothing 
connected with it, which is plainly revealed to us, may be 
objected against, because it is out of the ordinary opera- 
tions of nature, or what would be impossible with man. 
The power of the Highest might be able to bring a clean 
thing out of an unclean ; and this is in the text plainly set 
forth. "The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the 
power of the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore, 



424 



APPENDIX. 



also, that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be 
called the Son of God." But there is something in the 
words of our common version of this text, which may give 
rise to an idea for which there is no warrant in the words 
of the original. In the first place, there are no such words 
at all in the best copies of the original as should be trans- 
lated ' of thee — and, in the next place, in respect of the 
words ' which shall be born,' it is to be remarked, that 
what is in our version given with the future tense is, in 
the original, distinctly in the present; and this is import- 
ant, as it leads us to a conclusion, that a wrong meaning 
has been given to the word translated born. The proper 
signification of the original word in this place of Scripture, 
we find, by a comparison with Matt. i. 20, in which the 
same word in a past tense is used by the angel, where it 
cannot by any possibility signify bom, such a term being 
wholly inapplicable to the infant not being yet come into 
the world. " Fear not to take unto thee Mary, thy wife, 
for that which is conceived in her (or, as we read in the 
margin, begotten in her) is of the Holy Ghost." By a 
comparison of these two passages in Luke and Matthew, 
we are persuaded, that though the same word may be used 
to signify born, yet that its true rendering in the passage 
under consideration should be this, ' therefore, also, that 
holy begotten thing shall be called the Son of God ;' the 
manifestation in flesh of the Power of the Most High, and 
the Holiness of the Most High. And thus it will appear 
that the human nature of Christ not being other than holy 
in its conception, was in this respect akin to the nature of 
unfallen Adam, of whom it was said, that though he was 
formed by the Lord God out of the dust of the ground, yet 
that he was made in God's image, and in his likeness.' 

This view of the text I conceive to be perfectly just, and 
quite decisive as to the sinlessness of our Lord's human 
nature. 



APPENDIX. 



425 



Note D. Page 82. 

I have met with some good persons who were not a 
little perplexed by the declaration, that " the Holy Ghost 
was not yet given, because Christ was not yet glorified," 
as this seemed to them to imply either that no man could 
be saved before that event took place, or that men might 
be saved without the Spirit ; neither of which suppositions 
they could possibly admit. I must not, therefore, omit to re- 
mark, that the Holy Ghost was given long before the com- 
ing of Christ, both in his sanctifying and in his miraculous 
powers. Yet it is not the less true that he was never at 
any time given, excepting in consequence of the glorification 
of Christ. Had he never been glorified, — the Holy Ghost 
could never have been given. But then, from the moment 
that he undertook to become obedient unto death, his un- 
dertaking of the work of our redemption, and his success in 
that work, were so absolutely certain, that all the benefits 
of his death were bestowed upon men long before his death 
actually took place. He was the "Lamb slain from the 
foundation of the world." 

It may also be remarked, that, previous to the outpour- 
ing of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost, when the 
" ministration of the Spirit" properly began, whatever 
gifts or graces men possessed, though they acknowledged 
God as the author of them, yet they knew not that it was 
the peculiar office "of the Holy Ghost to confer these gifts 
and graces ; and in this view also it may be said that " the 
Holy Ghost was not yet given, because that Christ was not 
yet glorified." 



Note E. Page 86. 



When the word first acquired this meaning I am un- 
able to say ; but it occurs at least as early as the Chaldee 



426 



APPENDIX. 



paraphrase of 2 Samuel xxiv. 24, where David, on pur- 
chasing the threshing-floor of Araunah, says, " Nay, but I 
will surely buy it of thee at a price." In the Chaldee it 
is, I will buy it of thee Q^*"Q« Schleusner, in his Lexi- 
con of the Old Testament Greek, under the word xofluh- 
conjectures that it has derived this meaning from 
the root p|S% t° ^ e High as the authority of that 
Lexicographer is deservedly held in such matters, I can- 
not help thinking the conjecture a most unfortunate one. 
For, on the supposition that the word came to signify a 
L price' from its connection with the root T\l2H) I appre- 
hend that no reason can by any possibility be assigned 
why it should not have been written in the singular num- 
ber, or at least in the feminine form T]J2H^ or fil/b^* 
My own conjecture — and a conjecture may be admitted 
where nothing better is to be had — is, that the word 
Wtil came to signify a price, simply from its connection 
with atonement. The first thing that could convey the 
idea of 4 price' to man was atonement : for the first thing 
that he purchased was his forfeited life, and the price that 
he gave for it was the blood of his sacrifice. Hence 
blood might naturally come to signify a 4 price,' when 
blood was, in point of fact, the first price ever paid by 
man. This idea would be confirmed greatly could it be 
shown that this is really the meaning of the word in 
Isaiah ix. 5. This, however, would not be very easily 
done ; and if it could be done at all, would require more 
room than I can devote to it in this note. 

While I am in the region of conjecture, I may venture 
to add another. I would infer then, from 2 Sam. xxiv. 
24, that the word means such a price as is considered to 
be a full and fair equivalent for the thing for which it is 
paid. It would have suited the design and the feelings of 
David to take the threshing-floor, so munificently offered 
him by Araunah, for a merely nominal price, or for any 
thing under its real value, as little as it would have done 



APPENDIX. 



427 



to receive it for nothing. Whether this view "be confirm- 
ed by the use of the word, as expressive of a price, in other 
places, I have no means of ascertaining. 

Note F. Page 92. 

The expression of these sentiments reminds me that I 
have probably been originally indebted for them to Basil 
of Seleucia. In his thirty-second sermon, which is upon 
the words, " Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass 
from me," his great object is to rescue this text from the 
Arians and Eunomians, and to prove that the passion of 
our Lord was perfectly voluntary. The principal reason 
that he assigns for our Lord using these words is, that by 
his own example he might teach his disciples never rashly 
or unnecessarily to expose themselves to sufferings which 
they could lawfully avoid ; justly observing, that when 
God calls us to suffering, we can endure what we could not 
endure if unnecessarily encountered, — a remark the jus- 
tice of which was often proved by the failure of those who 
had rashly exposed themselves to suffering. The whole 
sermon is devoted to the proof that Christ willingly went 
to suffer. In connection with the sentiments that I have 
been expressing, the following passage deserves to be 
quoted. 

4 Do you not see, saith he, — the Arian or Eunomian, 
namely — If it be possible, a dread of suffering ? Do you 
not see a deprecation of the cross ? Do you not see the 
inferiority of the Son ? And they make some sophistical 
reasonings, that they may reproach the Son. But if from 
this place you accuse the Son, see how you condemn the 
weakness of the Father also. For he says, Father, if 
it be possible, let this cup pass from me. But where the 
help is doubtful, the weakness is manifest. For he does 
not say, Father, let the cup pass, for thou art able ; but, if 
it be possible, let it pass. If you will cling to the letter, you 



428 



APPENDIX. 



must first condemn the Father. If you reproach the Son, 
you reproach first the Spirit ; for of those whose honour is 
undivided, the reproach is common, which is proved by 
our Lord's own words to the Father, " All mine are thine, 
and thine are mine." But they bring against us what 
follows, " Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." 
Here again is a division of the wills, that there may be 
not only a distinction of nature, but an opposition of sen- 
timent, — " nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." 
You see, saith he, how he entereth suffering unwillingly. 
But if his passion was involuntary, his resurrection was 
undesigned. If the cross was without his design, then his 
grace comes by violence ; salvation was not his intention, 
and without design he saved us. What, then, meant Paul 
when he gave thanks and said, " Christ came into the 
world to save sinners, of whom I am chief?" What 
meant the Saviour himself, when he said, " I have power 
to lay down my life, and I have power to take it again ?" ' 
I need quote no more of the original, than the part that 
refers more directly to the sentiments expressed in the 
passage to which this note is appended. f 0%»g, (pnaiv, ag 

etKtov lo TccBog etaegxeloti ; AAA' itlo 7Tci§og acxovciou, efeavftif- 
Icg V) acva(,sai,oig, u 7rot^cc yvoi^nu 6 eavgog, ex Qioi$ vj %c&(>ts, ov 
xcflcz yvcoj&Y}v yj aeSln^iot, ov Qovhopsvog scracre. 

Note G. Page 213. 

It has been argued with great force and justice, by Dr 
Burton in his Bampton Lecture, that the belief in the 
miraculous conception by a portion of the Ebionites, in 
whose creed it was a mere useless redundancy, affords 
one of the strongest possible proofs how essential an article 
in the Christian creed that article formed; how strong 
were the proofs of it ; and how universally it was believed 
in the Church. I have mislaid my reference to the pass- 
age, and cannot at this moment turn to it to quote it, as I 



APPENDIX. 



429 



intended to do. But every one acquainted with the So- 
cinian controversy will see at once both the bearing and 
the value of the argument. That many Ebionites should 
have denied the miraculous conception is perfectly natu- 
ral. That any of them should have believed it can be 
accounted for only by admitting that its proof was over- 
whelming, and its belief universal. 

Note H. Page 231. 

To what extent the doctrine of the traduction of the 
soul prevailed in primitive times, it perhaps would not be 
easy to ascertain very exactly ; nor is it a matter of any 
importance, as we have the express testimony of Augus- 
tine that they who held that doctrine made an especial ex- 
ception of the soul of Christ. His testimony on this sub- 
ject is the more to be relied upon, because, of the various 
opinions as to the origin of the soul, he, though he often 
treats of the matter, declines to give a decisive preference 
to one more than another. His sentiments may be seen 
in the following passage. 

4 For that Jesus was dead as to his soul, that is, as to 
his human spirit, who will dare to affirm? Since the 
death of the soul is nothing else than sin, from which he 
was perfectly free when he died for us in the flesh. For 
if the souls of all men are derived from that one soul which 
was breathed into the first man, by whom sin entered into 
the world, and death by sin, and so passed upon all men ; 
either the soul of Christ was not thence derived, since he 
had no sin whatever, either original or personal, for which 
death might be due to him, — for, for us was that death 
which he did not owe, paid by him in whom the prince of 
this world, the Lord of death, found nothing ; — nor is it 
absurd to suppose that he who created a soul for the first 
man, should create one also for himself : or, if even his 
soul was thence derived, he purified it in the assumption, 



430 



APPENDIX. 



that coming to us, he might be born of a virgin, with- 
out any sin whatever, either committed or derived. But 
if souls be not propagated from that one soul, and the 
flesh alone draws original sin from Adam, then the Son of 
God created a soul for himself, just as he does for others ; 
which, however, he mingled not with sinful flesh, but with 
the likeness of sinful flesh. For he took of the Virgin the 
true substance of flesh indeed, but not sinful flesh ; as it 
was neither begotten nor conceived by carnal concupis- 
cence ; mortal indeed and changing through the different 
stages of growth, as being, without sin, most like to sin- 
ful flesh.' 

Nam quod fuerit anima mortificatus Jesus, hoc est, eo 
spiritu qui hominis est, quis audeat dicere? cum mors 
animae non sit nisi peccatum, a quo ille omnino immunis 
fuit, cum pro nobis carne mortificaretur. Si enim omnium 
hominum animae quae ilia una sunt, quae insufllata est primo 
homini, per quern peccatum intravit in mundum, et per 
peccatum mors, et ita in omnes homines pertrangiit ; aut 
non est, inde anima Christi, quoniam nullum habuit om- 
nino peccatum, vel originale vel proprium, propter quod 
ei mors debita videretur; pro nobis earn quippe quam 
non debebat exsolvit, in quo princeps mundi, mortisque 
propositus nihil invenit: neque enim absurdum est, ut 
qui primo homini animam creavit, crearet et sibi : aut si 
et ipsa inde est, earn suscipiendo mundavit, ut sine ullo 
prorsus peccato, vel perpetrato vel traducto, ad nos 
veniens de virgine nasceretur. Si autem animae non ex 
ilia una propagantur, et sola ex Adam caro trahit origi- 
nale peccatum, ita sibi creavit animam Dei Filius, ut 
caeteris creat, quam non tamen carni peccati miscuit, sed 
similitudine carnis peccati. Sumsit enim ex Virgine ve- 
ram quidem carnis substantiam, non tamen peccati car- 
nem, quia non ex carnali concupiscentia, sive seminatam, 
sive conceptam ; mortalem sane, ac per aetates mutabilem, 
tamquam carni peccati sine peccato simillimam.— -Epist. 
clxiv. Sect. 19. 



APPENDIX. 



431 



Note I. Page 277. 

Bayle thinks, or affects to think, that it was a happy 
circumstance for Christianity that Augustine ceased to be 
a Manichaean; as with his talents he would probably have 
formed Manichseism into a system which would have 
proved a dangerous rival to the Gospel. I readily admit 
that it was a happy circumstance that Augustine ceased 
to be a Manichsean ; but I cannot admit that Christianity 
would have been endangered, had even the powerful 
talents of one of its brightest ornaments been arrayed 
against it. Happily it rests upon something more power- 
ful by far than the talents of its ablest advocates. But 
there has always existed a leaven of Manichseism, which is 
the more carefully to be guarded against now, when its 
fundamental tenet is openly advocated. That it is advo- 
cated by men who are not aware that they are doing so, 
only makes the danger the greater. 

I may here notice a remark of Dr Priestley, who, when 
speaking of Augustine, says: — 4 Who is well known to 
have been a Manichsean.' This is a good instance of the 
way in which all the effect of falsehood may be pro- 
duced, without stating one word that is not literally true, 
Augustine is indeed well known to have been a Mani- 
chsean ; but the impression left on the mind of the reader, 
and I fear I must add, intended to be left, is, that he never 
was any thing else. The fact, that he became the most 
active and successful opponent of that system, is kept out 
of sight. 

Note K. Page 311. 

The best source of information to which I can refer the 
reader on this subject is Burton's Bampton Lecture, where, 
besides much important and interesting matter with re- 



4-32 



APPENDIX. 



gard to the heresies of the first century, he will find 
copious references to writers in whom more detailed par- 
ticulars may be had. I can the more confidently recom- 
mend this work, that, having had occasion to verify most 
of his references to ancient writers, I have uniformly found 
them made with such accuracy, and selected with such skill, 
and the conclusions to which they point developed with 
such judgment, as to make the book a real treasure to 
those who have not access to the original sources of infor- 
mation. I would strongly recommend it to all students of 
Theology. Burton is a writer to whom they may safely 
commit themselves, without the fear of being misled. I 
have rarely, indeed, read an author from whose conclusions 
I have so seldom seen reason to differ. 

I rejoice to learn that the same author is delivering a 
course of lectures upon the ecclesiastical history of the 
first century. Few subjects can be more important, and, 
perhaps, there is no man equally well qualified to do it 
ample justice. I trust that he will, in due time, find it 
convenient to give his lectures to the public. There is a 
Professorship of Ecclesiastical History in Edinburgh ; but 
of which I fear the students do not avail themselves so 
extensively as they ought. It is to be hoped that they 
who are called upon to admit young men to holy orders, 
will become more and more alive to the importance of 
ascertaining that they are well instructed upon this point. 
And surely this can never be done by merely examining 
them upon, or even making them write, the history of any 
given century, the sixteenth for example. Deeply im- 
portant as is the history of that period, yet a man may be 
not only an able preacher of the doctrines of the Gospel, 
but an accomplished expounder of Scripture, even though 
he had never heard that such a period as the sixteenth 
century had ever occurred in the annals of time. Can as 
much be said for him who is ignorant of, or only super- 
ficially acquainted with, the history of the first century? 
As it is most desirable that every preacher of the Gospel 



APPENDIX. 



433 



should be able to expound the Scripture for himself, with- 
out being compelled to depend upon commentators, from 
whom in many cases he will find but little help, they who 
neglect to avail themselves of the advantages to be de- 
rived from the Lectures on Ecclesiastical History, are 
guilty of a very serious dereliction of their duty. For 
myself, I can say, that I was never more deeply interested 
in, or derived more essential benefit from, any course of 
lectures that I ever attended, than those of Dr Meiklejohn 
on Ecclesiastical History. 



Note L. Page 314. 

The opinions of the Gnostics, with regard to matter, may 
at first sight appear to be of comparatively trifling im- 
portance, or at least of a much less fatal nature than those 
heresies which strike directly at the vitals of religion, such 
as those that deny the Divinity of the Saviour, or main- 
tain his peccability ; and, therefore, though the eternity 
of matter be an opinion contradictory to Scripture, — and 
even this has been denied, — yet it is a contradiction 
that does not require to be so earnestly and decidedly met 
as such heresies. But in reality the Gnostic notions as to 
matter are not less decidedly fatal than these, or any 
heresies can be. ~For, first, if matter be not the creature 
of God, then it is something independent upon him. He 
may be able to modify it, but he cannot destroy what he 
did not produce. And this, by no long or intricate process 
of reasoning, leads directly to Atheism. Next, if matter 
be inherently evil, then the doctrine of the resurrection is 
to be abhorred, as it was by the Gnostics ; for the resur- 
rection just reunites us to that which is essentially evil, 
and in a complete emancipation from which our salvation 
consists. Hence they strongly denied the resurrection ; 
and the Fathers, horrified at this havoc of the hopes of the 
Christian, not only maintained the truth of the resur- 

T 



434 



APPENDIX, 



reetion, but it must be admitted, in order to escape as far 
as possible from the Gnostics, seemed in a great measure 
to overlook the fact, that what is sown a natural body is 
raised a spiritual body, and that our evil bodies shall be 
changed, that they may be like the glorious body of our 
Lord ; and so earnestly taught our entrance into heaven 
in all the gross dimensions of flesh and blood, as fairly to 
give the advantage in the argument to the Gnostics, as 
has been repeatedly remarked. That matter is inherently 
evil is a doctrine so destructive of the resurrection, that 
the Fathers, in opposing it, did not in their zeal see that 
they were often verging upon the very opposite extreme. 
Again, if matter be evil, — whether it was so from eternity, 
or became so by the fall, if such a thing were possible, 
signifies nothing — then the Incarnation is denied. A pure 
and holy God may work upon matter which is evil, and 
he may work with such matter as an instrument ; and of 
such matter he may form a human body, and endue it with 
a human soul, and through that man he may possibly re- 
veal his will, and in that man he may possibly operate by 
a mighty influence to the working of many wondrous 
works. But that he should take such matter into his own 
personal constitution, so that it may be fairly called him- 
self, or part of himself, — that he should be so united to a 
body formed of such matter, that when the officer struck 
this body on the cheek, he could say, u Why smitest. 
thou Me V — or when it was fastened to the cross, it could 
be said the Lord of Glory was crucified ; — that such 
matter should be, not the temple merely, not the taber- 
nacle, the organ or instrument of God, but the very body 
of God, is an idea so utterly repugnant to all that we 
have been taught to think and to feel concerning God, 
that I know of no Catholic, and of no Gnostic, that ever 
entertained it. The latter, maintaining that all matter, 
and, therefore, that flesh was essentially evil, denied the 
Incarnation. Such of them as admitted the reality of our 
Lord's body, also admitted readily enough that Christ 



APPENDIX. 



435 



dwelt in Jesus, and used him as his instrument, a man 
whom, even before his anointing at his baptism, they 
describe as more wise and holy than all other men ; but 
that Jesus was Christ they most determinedly denied. 
The Catholics, on the contrary, maintained that Jesus 
was Christ, that the heavenly did not dwell in the earth- 
ly, did not merely use him as his instrument, did not in- 
spire him, but that " the Word was made flesh." Henc« 
they not only denied the evil of matter, in which they 
were certainly right, and on this point might fairly have 
defeated the Gnostics ; but in their zeal went so far as to 
maintain that there is nothing in flesh and blood unfit for 
the kingdom of heaven, thus giving the Gnostics a clear 
advantage over them. Yet we are called upon to believe 
that even in Christ flesh was a fallen sinful thing ! Finally, 
if the Incarnation be denied, I need hardly say that atone- 
ment also is denied. And should the Catholic have con- 
ceded to the Gnostic the grand principle on which he built 
these ruinous consequences, and admitted that the flesh of 
Christ was sinful, what had he left himself in the Gospel 
that was worth defending ; or what ground had he left 
himself upon which it might be defended ? 

Thus the Gnostic notions as to matter effectually swept 
away every doctrine of the Gospel. In support of these 
notions they urged the sinfulness of flesh, — though they 
were not bold enough to ascribe such flesh to Christ ; but 
rather either denied that he took flesh at all, or maintain- 
ed that he only dwelt in the flesh as in a temple, without 
any personal union with it. Their notions may again be- 
come fashionable ; for when men once leave the simplicity 
of Scripture, they can have no security that they shall not 
fall into the same errors, which, under similar circum- 
stances, have misled men before. Even a wilder effort 
may be made in support of such notions than the Gnostics 
ventured to make ; and sinfulness may be ascribed to the 
" Holy One of God." And when we find the Gnostics 
urging in support of their notions those texts of Scripture 



436 



APPENDIX. 



which describe our flesh as a fallen sinful thing ; and when 
we find the Catholics contesting their exposition and ap- 
plication of these texts, we may be told that on this 
ground there was no contest between them whatever, nay, 
that the Catholics went farther than any Gnostic ever 
ventured to go, and not only maintained flesh to be an 
evil thing, but actually taught that even in our Lord Jesus 
Christ flesh was fallen and sinful. We may be told, — 
we are told this ; but is it in the power of any human being 
to believe it ? 



Note M. Page 366. 

The note of Heroetus upon this passage is, MapMgw* 
ro$. Id est, si dici posset Latine, Impeccabilis, id est, qui 
nec peccat, nec potest peccare. Az/gTr/A^xroi/, id est, qui 
non potest reprehends Est autem unum alteri consequens. 
Nam si nihil potest reprehendi prseter peccatum, sequitur 
ut qui non possit reprehendi, non peccet. — Had the learned 
commentator recollected the Answers to the Orthodox, 
attributed to Justin, though some of them, at least, are 
plainly of a later age, he might have found a definition of 
the first of these words which would have put the purity 
of his Latin to no hazard. Question 141 is, • If Christ 
alone kept the law of God perfectly, how is it said of 
Zacharias and Elisabeth that they walked in the law 
blameless, — oc^s^7rroi ;— and how does Paul say that touch- 
ing the righteousness of the law he was blameless — a^g^sr- 
rog ? The reply is, Blameless — etpe/Mrrav— is one thing, and 
sinless — avocpc&gTYiTov — is another thing. He who is sinless 
is altogether blameless ; but he who is blameless is not of 
necessity sinless. For he who commits a sin against the 
law, which can be forgiven through sacrifice and confession, 
having obtained forgiveness, becomes pure and blameless, 
according to the righteousness which is of the law. But 
Christ being sinless, and never transgressing the law, did 



APPENDIX. 



437 



nothing which stood in need of correction. He admitted 
John the Baptist, and was baptized of him, that he might 
fulfil all righteousness ; which Paul, before he believed in 
Christ, had not received, else he would not have perse- 
cuted the Church. For this reason, Christ alone is said to 
be sinless — ocvot^ot^TYirog. 

This word may, I believe, be properly enough translated 
1 impeccable,' wherever it is used by the Fathers. I have 
sometimes translated it by that word, and sometimes 4 sin- 
less,' commonly taking the word that first suggested itself, 
with little discrimination. Where it occurs in these ex- 
tracts, the reader may commonly use the one or the other 
word, without affecting the purpose for which the extract 
is made. 



Note N". Page 411. 

Priestley, speaking of the Gnostics, says : — ' The prin- 
ciples of this system, whatever we may think of it at pre- 
sent, must have been exceedingly captivating at the time 
of their publication, as many excellent men were much 
taken with them. This was the case with Epiphanius,' and 
some others whom he names. With respect to Epipha- 
nius, I recollect not that he expresses any admiration that 
he had ever felt for Gnostic doctrines, though he expresses 
his thankfulness for having escaped that system. When 
he was a young man, two females were employed to convert 
him ; for the desecration of female influence and eloquence 
to give currency to doctrines which can hardly hope for 
success by ordinary means, is no modern invention. There 
are, doubtless, many legitimate ways in which such influ- 
ence may be employed in the most praiseworthy manner ; 
but ever since Eve preached heresy in Paradise, I confess 
I more than doubt whether ever any female did good to 
the world or credit to herself by entering upon the rugged 
paths of controversy, or engaging in the public discussion 



438 



APPENDIX. 



of disputed points in theology. Now, if we assume, as we 
have every reason to do, that the females employed to con- 
vert Epiphanius were neither old nor ugly, nor yet infested 
with a more rigid virtue than Gnosticism required, we 
may easily see how the young man might have reason to 
thank God for his escape, without supposing that he saw 
anything very captivating in the principles of Gnosticism. 
That system, I suspect, was commonly more indebted to 
its practices than its principles. If I am asked what these 
practices were, I can only reply, that he who has gone 
through the repulsive details, as given by Epiphanius him- 
self, is a more resolute reader than I can pretend to be. 

But that the principles of Gnosticism should meet with 
admirers even among those who had no wish to take ad- 
vantage of the licentious application of which they were so 
naturally susceptible, and which they so commonly re- 
ceived, can be matter of no surprise ; for when a man re- 
fuses to subject his understanding to the Word of God, 
and to receive its dictates with all the docility of a little 
child, there is no absurdity of which he may not become 
an admirer. I have always considered the fame of Hume 
as one of the most affecting and instructive proofs of the 
utter imbecility, and the wild wanderings of the human 
mind, when rejecting the guidance of God and of his Word. 
He was raised to the throne of Philosophy, a situation 
whicti I suppose he still occupies in the estimation of many, 
for giving to the world what is neither more nor less than 
a very paltry and mutilated edition of the Jewish Cabala. 
That system taught that there is no such thing as matter, 
all things being only an extension of the substance of God. 
But then it taught that he could make these extensions 
when he pleased, and how he pleased ; and never did make 
them but under the direction of unerring wisdom, and for 
the most benevolent purposes. Now, take from this sys- 
tem all that can redeem it from unmingled contempt ; re- 
move from it the voluntary action of God, and connect 
with it the doctrine of necessity, thus stamping it with that 



APPENDIX. 



439 



character of Atheism which in its original form it does not 
bear, — alterations in which Hume had not even the poor 
merit of being original, — and you have the sum and sub- 
stance of Hume's philosophy. It is only truth that is 
truly boundless. The range of error is extremely limited. 
And unless the mind be subjected without reserve to the 
teaching of God, by his Word and Spirit, there is nothing 
to save us from very cordially adopting, and very firmly 
believing, the wildest absurdities, and the grossest errors, 
that we laugh at or reprobate in the dreams of earlier 
speculators. We may give them new names, and clothe 
them in new dresses, and paint them in new colours ; but 
their nature and substance remains the same. The philo- 
sophy of Hume is to be found in the Jewish Cabbala ; 
and the fundamental tenets of Gnosticism are revived in 
the doctrine that the flesh of Christ was fallen sinful flesh. 



THE END. 



EDINBURGH PRINTING COMPANY, 12, SOUTH ST DAVID STKEET. 




i- 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 020 517 334 1 



